@NoAtheists Continuing: of its gravity on surrounding matter. Therefore, based on observations of the movements of stars in the galactic nuclei, scientists can predict a blackhole is there. The plum pudding model is disproven, but it was eventually replaced by the electron cloud model, which is a more accurate description of atoms. Could we be wrong? Yes, but the nature of science is such that it can accept its mistakes and improve on its knowledge.
@NoAtheists Like I said, there are alternative methods for proof besides direct observation. We cannot see an atom in the conventional sense, but we know electrons, neutrons, and protons exist because of their effects which are observable. I dont have enough knowledge to go into specific detail yet, but I can provide another example. The existance of black holes are accepted by most scientists, but because they suck in light itself, no one could see it. But we can observe the effects
@NoAtheists Whether or not birds came from dinosaurs cannot be 100% proven, but the reason people believe it is not based on faith, but because it can be inferred. If you believe in the fact of evolution, then you believe that species gradually change over time. There are fossil records of dinosaurs with feathers on their wings, and so there is good reason to believe that birds evolved form dinosaurs.
@NoAtheists There is evidence. Take for example gravity, it is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that, well, when you drop something on Earth, it will fall down. The theory of gravity is an explanation for how it works. A scientific theory is by definition tested, and thus supported by evidence. The evidence for the modern theory of Einsteinian gravity lies in the fact that it correctly predicted the eratic orbit of Mercury that could not be accounted for by Newtonian gravity
@NoAtheists I hope you are just trolling, but in the case that you are not, how else would you explain the world? Just because you have not seen something, does not mean it does not exist. There are other methods of providing evidence. This is what separates religion from science. Scientific beliefs are based on evidence, and so on the contrary, some beliefs are based on logic.
@NoAtheists You could, if you had EVIDENCE. The hole point of the FSM is to show how STUPID is to believe in creationism in contrast to a theory with "Overwhelming Evidence" as the letter said. Evolution is a fact. God is not. That is why you require faith to believe in God, because you don't have evidence to prove that, in fact, He exists. I agree with your last statement with the religion part, however I'd like you to try to prove why science is bullshit, although I do find it hard for you.
I find it funny that YEARS of attempting logical, scientific arguments, that don't insult the intelligence of Christians, DIDN'T work. The only effective way to combat their illogical fantasies is WITH ILLOGICAL FANTASIES! The merits of atheism and the scientific method, sadly, needed to be presented this way to those archaic members of society that cling to Goad and Jesus. Flying Spaghetti Monster, all the way! Now, which way to the library so I can learn about science?
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. He wants us to elevate our consciousness to the next level, is real
[You said though that since something cant be explained its not unexplainable. The same fits for religion.]
Religion claims to know how everything started, right now.
Those theories do not claim to know.
One takes faith, the other evidence, thats why the theories are not concrete, and not everyone thinks they are correct. You are so damn deluded, it would be funny if you were a troll, but your not, so it's kinda sad :(
If you want creationism in school, provide evidence, thats it.
If we allow Creationism to be taught as science, why shouldn't we allow all other religious origins to be taught as science? We'd end up with very confused children, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Shinto, Ancient Greek, Aztec, Miyan & Norrisist theories of universal origin are just as equally valid as Intelligent Design
Either the theory of evolution shouldnt be taught in school, or both creation and evolution should be taught plain and simple. They are both religion by definition and both contain an overwhelming amount of faith. "Flying spaghetti monster" how about stop worshiping Dawkins and come up with your OWN ideas for once.
Do you have any reason to believe that "Evolution" is a religion?
Religious people believe what they believe because their "God" tells them to.
People who accept evolution do so because of the evidence...not because Darwin or Dawkins tells them to.
Two totally different things.
If you can point out even a SINGLE THING that a scientist "belives by faith", the first thing they would do is stop believing it. Evolution is a fact. The "Theory" of evolution is also widely accepted.
@Kinin4 " a SINGLE THING " We can start with how it all began. Somehow by faith the majority of scientist believe that nothing became something. It defies laws of physics. There was no time, no space, no matter and somehow an explosion happened and thus began everything. Is that not what is taught?
[-Somehow by faith the majority of scientist believe that nothing became something. It defies laws of physics.-]
Except the laws of physics do not apply OUTSIDE that "something". So your protest against it is fallacious.
And it is very much NOT "by faith". They see the universe expanding, which leads them to logically infer that it, at one point, was something the size of a marble, which suddenly expanded.
Also, there are many different ideas and hypothesis that scientists are studying to see HOW it could have happened. That's why there is no Theory as to how something came from nothing, but only Hypothesis. Scientists recognize the dilemma, I assure you; and they do not take anything on "faith".
@Kinin4 By faith, they believe that after millions of years life formed from minerals in rocks. If it is a hypothesis, then it is the only one they teach. If its just a hypothesis and a theory, then it has no part in the education system but it is taught all over as an acceptable theory for truth.
@Kinin4 Sorry, came from minerals, Ill look it up again but I do have a source that it says minerals from rocks. Maybe at the college you went to but it sure wasnt at mine. It was pushed as truth because it was widley accepted. It was taught with a hint of theory but overall, it was believed to be the start.
@Kinin4 You jumped to conclusions like most atheist. What makes it a religion is the definition noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. So its religion because it fits into that catagory. It contains faith because science has no idea how it began but insists upon the big bang theory. Evolution has not been 100 percent proven, if it was, it wouldnt be a theory.
[-What makes it a religion is the definition noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. So its religion because it fits into that catagory.-]
How the heck does atheism fit into that?
Atheism is not a belief (it's the rejection of one), nor does it attempt to explain ANYTHING.
[-It contains faith because science has no idea how it began but insists upon the big bang theory.-]
That is not faith. They know that the Big Bang happened, they just don't know what caused it or what came before it. You can know an event happened, without knowing how the event happened, and not rely on faith. The evidence for the Big Bang Theory is overwhelming.
Big Bang Theory: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe."
@Kinin4 Well, not for the sake of arguing im going to have to disagree.1.What exploded 2.Where did the matter come from that it teaches exploded 2.Where did the laws that govern everything come from 4.Where did the energy come from 5.Conservation of angular momentum says that if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment,objects will all spin the same direction. then why do 2 planets spin backwards. Also,
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.
5.) So? The planets were formed AFTER the Big Bang.
You see, you're asking questions that do not pertain to whether the Big Bang actually happened. You're simply pointing out all the things we DON'T know, which has no bearing on what we DO know. You should join the field of science so you can help figure those out, and give us more answers, such as HOW the Big Bang happened. :)
@Kinin4 So they know that it happened, but know nothing about it...so how did it happen when none of it works. Im really not trying to pick or anything or get on your nerves, it just sounds so...stupid to me. Im not calling you stupid, But the theory sounds so far fetched to me.I say its taught by faith for this same reason, there is no proof, no evidence, no laws in physics explain any of it, but we are supposed to just make a leap of faith and believe it.
@KesslersCross You do not know what the word theory means. Secondly, the theists explanation is logicly more improbable, because you are adding not only another step: God>universe, but a SUPERNATURAL step. We say that ?>universe, and we are working to find that out, you claim to know what ? Is, since you make the claim, you must prove your claim, you dont get to say "I as a layman human, think that x is improbable, therefore x is God" no sir, that is not how science works, and never will work.
@ThatFuckingAtheist The definition of supernatural is relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws. So, everything that I asked fits directly into the catagory according to definition. So to to accept the big bang would be just as much believing in a "supernatural" force as believing that God created everything without any answers of how. So which ever answer you want to fill in for X is your choice, but both are just as religious.
@KesslersCross There is evidence for the big bang, there is no evidence for God, end of story.
Redshifting, the micorwave backround etc. all point to a expansion a while back.
Attempting to bring both claims down to the same level, is a red flag for someone who has no proof for their claim in the first place, it's like saying "Oh yea? Well atheism is a religion too!"
Instead of going, "Oh yea? Well whether or not you accept the BBtheory, its still religious!"
@ThatFuckingAtheist If there was evidence for the big bang then you could answer my questions, which you cant. Red shift and microwave background is not evidnece for a big bang, it is evidnece for the second law of thermal dynamics which follows my 3 question that cant be answered, where did the laws come from that govern anything in physics? It is religious by definition which is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It is a belief, not a fact.
@KesslersCross Well sorry, im not a goddamn scientist, but in any case, everyone that has attempted to answer you questions, you have just blocked them out, and if you really think your slanted preconcieved notions that have just formulated questions that have not been explained yet, in order to try and make science look stupid, your wrong. If we cant explain somthing, its unexplained, not some hole for non scientific religion to crawl is damn way into. And if your god cared hed clear it up now.
@ThatFuckingAtheist I hate typing these things because no one can decern anything about the other person and it seems like im coming off as this " ha ha in your face science looses" type thing and thats not what im getting at. Im logically looking at the situation and simply seeing it as invalid.No, I didnt come up with this, just like you didnt come up with the big bang or evolution.You said though that since something cant be explained its not unexplainable. The same fits for religion.
@KesslersCross re·li·gion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The fact of evolution explains why life is so diverse. The big bang show that a long time ago a subatomic particle expanded. [1/2]
[-Evolution has not been 100 percent proven, if it was, it wouldnt be a theory.-]
that is THE MOST ignorant creationist argument. I expected better of you.
1.) A Theory is just a model for explaining our universe, Gravity is a "Theory". Your definition of Theory and science's definition of Theory are quite different. Think of it like "Music Theory".
2.) There is difference between "Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". the Theory is Natural Selection, the fact is Evolution.
@KesslersCross You said "Evolution has not been 100 percent proven, if it was, it wouldnt be a theory.".
You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Not only has evolution been proven but they utilize it repeatedly in the study and advancement of biological science. You also have no idea what a theory means in a scientific context. Let me attempt to enlighten you.
@KesslersCross James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
@KesslersCross In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
@KesslersCross Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95--99% depending on the primate.
@KesslersCross The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
@KesslersCross Many Creationists prefer to state that Micro-evolution is valid and Macro-evolution is not. The only reason that Micro-E is accepted by Creationists is because it has been proven repeatedly under controlled conditions and there are many examples of Micro-E that we can view in everyday life. Macro-E is not accepted since it would then be confirming that Creation was inaccurate. (cont)
@KesslersCross "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
@KesslersCross We cannot possibly 'prove' what is considered Macro-E because these changes take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
@KesslersCross Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
@KesslersCross OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
@KesslersCross Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
@KesslersCross As you can see, theory is defined differently in science. It doesn't go FROM a THEORY and get 'promoted' TO a LAW. You cannot say "It's ONLY a theory" when you are speaking of the scientific meaning.
I have a large amount of additional evidence that I can post if you would still like to continue debating the validity of evolution. Evolution is a fact...there is no way to dispute it. Let me know if you would like more detailed information with specific sources.
@CynicalSkeptic1 So theory is defined differently when it is dealing with science? I have never heard of that, or seen a distinction in the definitions. Just a question then, why is evolution still defined as a theory? Or has it recently been promoted to fact? I see a lot of scientific conclusions in evolution, and dont have a problem with it either except a few things just like the big bang.
@KesslersCross If you Google "Scientific meaning of theory" then you can see for yourself. The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Just like any alleged explanation of abiogenesis has nothing to do with it either. You might want to peruse the information with a little more depth since I answer your question in my comments. They incorporate facts and laws in theories.
@KesslersCross Also, the reason that the Big Bang appears to have happened is due to the dispersion of microwave radiation and the fact that all galaxies are moving away from what appears to be a singular point if you extrapolate the movement backwards.
@KesslersCross By the way, I just wanted to say that I am rather impressed at your reaction to my information...it appears that you may have an open mind.
You would be surprised at the reaction that I normally receive from most religious people. They don't even consider the large amount of information that I may post....most just automatically disregard it because it conflicts with their idea of reality.
@CynicalSkeptic1 Oh sure, lol most people take me the wrong way when I start talking about why I dont persoanlly buy into evolution but its strictly for scientific reasons. I like to study it. I know it always goes from if evolution is true into does God exist. There are very close subjects but proving evolution does not prove of disprove God so I really dont understand why it always crosses that line. I mean, the Bible is very vague of how God did it so whats the point of the argue.
well if you want to include all versions of pirates we should be in an ice age due to all the internet standing pirates lol (using your logic of course)
"" if it were to be proven true then your god doesn't sound like someone worth spending an eternity with ""
precisely my point. u dont want God to be real if that is what he is like. And God lets u go into blindness until the end where you will be exposed as utterly evil and wanting and deserving hell. Hell is for all those that wanna play God seeking their own will and their own glory, while there will and glory are utterly evil.
@j919or What I want has no impact on whether something is real. You haven't your god exists so it makes no difference to me what they think or plan or do. One thing is clear though, which is that you clearly have no backbone, kneeling out of fear, I pity you. The funny thing is that if it turns out Allah or whomever is the true god, we both burn. See you there.
@BravoP085 ""no backbone, kneeling out of fear, I pity you""
If my creator wanted me to kneel out of fear id be an idiot to resist. But He doesnt even require that. I dont kneel and I have no fear of God. I do yield to His presence/His SPirit within me and find that to be exhilorating.
@BravoP085 ""Allah or whomever is the true god, we both burn""
There is one God and many teaching about God. I experience God each day. Allah or whomever are not teachings that God is experiencible/knowable. Therefore those teachings are neither verifiable. The teaching of Jesus is and he has verified His teaching with His very presence.Therefore you dont need to be an intellectual to know God. His presence confirms his teaching with joy love and peace.Which i never had until Jesus in my life
this is sad, i dont understand how something as silly as this can fill the minds of intellegent human beings. no one should get into this , if no one can see him how do they know he is made out of noodles??? its really stupid and can someone tell me when this was all discovered?? why do we use AD and BC cuz were realating to when Christ was born and his resurrection . we dont have ND or BN for before noodle and noodle death. this is just stupidity on behalf of the world.
God gives you evil children of satan enough evidence for you to come to Him and yield to His right to control ur life if that is what you so want. ANd for those that dont want God, he leaves enough pieces missing to allow you to reason God out of ur consciousness.So the atheist movement could be being used by God to polarize the believers and non believers. "He sent them a great delusion that they believe the lie, who took pleasure in unrighteousness"
@j919or We consider it akin to what comes out every other religion: You can't prove it, so we don't believe it, and if it were to be proven true then your god doesn't sound like someone worth spending an eternity with in the first place, let alone worthy of worship, more like someone who commits atrocities surpassing even those of Hitler and Stalin or Mao. Indeed, if your god was true, most lowly humans would seem to have more mature views of morality and logic, and intelligence in general.
@BravoP085 "You can't prove it, so we don't believe it""
There is no such thing as absolute proof of anything, esp. to those that dont want to believe it. They will attack any proof presented to them. We are dealing with ancient history and any such history is difficult to prove but people accept Julius ceasar as real when there is way more proof that Jesus is real. You have decided that Jesus is not worthy of ur worship and therefore you reveal bias. You are hopeless.
Jesus has zero contemporaries, zero. No one that wrote the bible was around when he was. Jesus also claims miracales. The more outrageous the claim, the larger burden of proof.
"His teaching with His very presence." All religions feel their god. Your beliefs are no different. The bible haas many contradictions and has very immoral teachings.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Not sure which, of the anachronism or the belief that no one existed alongside Jesus is worse. Read your posts before you submit them.
[-There is no such thing as absolute proof of anything, esp. to those that dont want to believe it.-]
1.) "Absolute proof" is meaningless and unattainable for ANYTHING. No one is asking for ABSOLUTE proof, just proof that isn't concocted out of a delusion.
2.) I have no preconceived notions about whether I "want" to believe in god or not. If he is true, then I would most CERTAINLY want to believe in what is true.
Now it's your turn to prove his existence. Good luck with that.
@Grey13Human May His noodley appendages touch you, my fellow Pastafarian. May you go to heaven and enjoy the stripper factory and holy beer volcano. Ramen!
@oohrah1996 I don't understand why I must have be on drugs to be a Pastafarian. Our religion is just as believable as yours, or anybody else's, if not more believable. Do you not wish to ascend to heaven with the beer volcano and stripper factory? I hope that some day you will be touched by his noodly appendage.
first this now the jedis are roaming europe. LOL whats next thor the god of thunder actually exist? atheist or science or whatever you believe this is stupid. the human race believed in many gods since ancient times, no one can say which was real anymore, now we are believing in a spaghette monster? did scooby doo help you with this imagination?
"God is real" - Biologist "If god wasn't real, how could I exist?" - Doctor "Dinosaur bones is just a trick sent by god to test our faiths in god...OBVIOUSLY."- Scientist "If god didn't exist, I would have no reason to hate you."- U.S. Surgeon General "Atheists seem to think that there is no creator, if that is true, how do you poor folks explain the catsup and bologna you eat for dinner every night?"- Barack Obama
@Revolution2pointO You haven't read the Bible have you? All who do not believe in their Lord God, and all who refuse to, will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Who cares about him stammering and pausing while he reads? Some people are just bad at reading aloud. It doesn't mean he can't read perfectly fine to himself.
@berniebay yea it takes more work for your brain to process the words thus allowing your speech, than if your just silently reading. some people are developed more then others
The FOOL has said in his heart, there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. Corrupt are they, they have done abominable works. There is none that doeth good.
"Hey mommy how do you know that the invisible spaghetti monster doesn't exist?"
"Because dear, there is no proof of any sort of ridiculous creature! Seeing as this creature is invisible the default position is to disbelieve in such a far-out idea. The burden of proof is on the positive claim" The moral of the story: PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS! THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU FOR YOU ARE MAKING EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM! BTW YOU ARE ALL JUVENILE FOR BELIEVING IN THE INVISIBLE SPAGHETTI MONSTER! ROFLMAO.
what kind of a fucking name is that? seriously? flying spaghetti monster? sounds like a bunch of pretentious thirteen year old douchefags made it. I fucking hate it when atheists say that, "flying spaghetti monster" and his "noodley appendage" bullshit. is that supposed to be funny or something? is that supposed to make fun of religion? is it supposed to be cheeky and cute? that's right up there with "blue screen of death" and "in soviet russia..." jokes
@marcsman229 It just shows us how immoral against truth these people are. The believers are not allowed to joke and lie. That's a grave sin. But of course, irreligious people have no concept of the moral high of telling the truth especially to something you believe. And thus the religion that teaches mankind to become religious, they end up morally superior in this regard. But we thank the God for showing us their moral character.
@faro0485 Meh, I don't believe in God either. Everything Josephus said was a farce. The God in the Old Testament completely changed in the New Testament. Slavery was even considered in the Old Testament considering that God should've just said that we weren't going to rely on slavery forever or some sort of foreshadowing. Christianity is very contradictory and Jesus' miracles are based on hearsays.
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing....For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and the Greeks foolishness....not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Corninthians)
The flying spaghetti monster and his noodly appendages are nothing more than just a myth. In other words, extraordinary claims are a myth unless if they're backed up by extraordinary evidence. The bible is a man made book therefore it is NOT even close to being classified as extraordinary evidence.
@bvsandman when telling somebody that they are stupid for not believing in something for which there is no proof of, at least use correct spelling as to not come off as a complete retard. *ACCEPT* not except
@bvsandman You just fulfill the pastafarian prophecy. You can choose your blasphemous side and worship false Gods if you want. But know this, the FSM boiled for your sins and if you do not accept his forgiveness you will boil for eternity after your death...
@bvsandman Experience with what? paranormal crap. lol. And your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Atheists don't treat the Christian bible like a science book. Atheists use textbooks to convey accurate scientific information. The people that do treat the Christian bible like a science book are the fundamental protestants i.e. biblical literalists who think the earth is 6000 years old. lol.
@FallofDarkness55 Actually some atheists take the bible literal and say well they say the earth was flat! That's making the bible look like a science book. Clearly it's not flat. But a lot of paranormal stuff can't be solved using scientific methods. Science has been wrong with many things that God can prove. You insulting me makes no difference to my beliefs, as does your failed generalizations.
@bvsandman There are no atheists that believe the Earth is flat. In fact I've never encountered any atheists who think this irrational. Secondly, superstition doesn't exist. (It makes me wonder if you people are on LSD.) lol. "Science has been wrong with many things that God can prove"- Really? Show me the proof then. lol. If you can't then you're just another irrational person who uses bald assertions a lot. Science has been right about everything so far. You're just another religious nut! lol.
@FallofDarkness55 Well, If scientists that are in said subject of the big bang and are credible in the fields, if they don't believe in the Big bang or evolution, does that mean those scientists who give proof of the theory not making sense are morons? No.. And I never said you believe the earth is flat. That is something atheists use to say "Da bible is wrong drrrr" most atheists if not all say everything in the bible is wrong. What about archaeology? Specific places/prophecies are true. Jesus.
@bvsandman Go to school and become educated that way you can make sense. I don't believe the Earth is flat. You got that right, but I was making a generalization by saying that all atheists don't believe the Earth is flat. Atheists have never said the Earth was flat, EVER. Where do you get your info? Out of your ass? lol. Quit taking LSD so fucking much.
@FallofDarkness55 /Sigh, the normal atheist taking words a theist says and twisting them. If you learned how to read, you would clearly see I never said Atheists said the world was flat. I used that as an example of what atheists target in the bible when most people, even atheists thought the world was flat due to the lack of technology. Now the sooner you read the Bible with an open mind, you might be able to see how the bible is true. God didn't write the bible, man did, it is Gods word..
@bvsandman Due to humanity's intellect and advanced technology, we have discovered a lot of things about nature that we didn't know before. Some of this dates back to Copernicus, when he found out that the Earth was not the center of the universe therefore discovering that the Earth was actually round. My point is humanity's scientific discoveries are converging in on a full understanding of the universe without invoking a god.
@faro0485 That's irrelevant. I'm talking about human achievements due to the advancement of technology. In 100 years or so, humans will find the unified theory! And they will discover that the notion of god was an absurd way to explain our existence and our perceptions of reality!
@FallofDarkness55 There are several Unified Field Theories already in existence. Question, how have you been prepairing to shield your electrical equipments against the coming Solar Storm by the end of next year?
@faro0485 First of all I do maintenance around my house which includes unplugging any electrical devices that I don't use in a large amount of time. Secondly, I don't think the solar storm will be that huge seeing as the solar storm in 2001 wasn't that huge. These solar events happen in an 11 year cycle! It's the 2012 hysteria that makes this solar storm bigger than it is. You need to stop doing drugs! LOL
@FallofDarkness55 That is a slanderous and irrelevant accusation. /watch?v=xtjwtmjbOKE So your protecting your equipment, what about your code? Is the legacy of your code been given a chance to grow? Are you providing measures to the longevity of your legacy?
@faro0485 YOU'RE DELUSIONAL! STOP TAKING LSD OR IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK WITH THE DOCTOR IF YOU HAVE SCHIZOPHRENIA! THE QURAN IS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK! THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN EITHER OF THOSE BOOKS TO CONVINCE ME THAT THERE IS A SUPERNATURAL BEING WATCHING OVER US! IF THESE BOOKS CONVINCED YOU THEN WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN HARRY POTTER? SUPERMAN? SPIDERMAN? TELEPATHY? YOU'RE DELUSIONAL. ROFLMAO!
Here is a logical argument for the pastafarian god, the flying spaghetti monster: /watch?v=vLVcfScjRMo
Please enjoy.
MrTrevorsChannel 2 weeks ago
The Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't hinder my faith in God... it simply makes me hungry... mmmm dinner.
666TheBloodLust666 2 weeks ago
haha boy did he struggle reading that letter :p
rizladizla 1 month ago
@NoAtheists Continuing: of its gravity on surrounding matter. Therefore, based on observations of the movements of stars in the galactic nuclei, scientists can predict a blackhole is there. The plum pudding model is disproven, but it was eventually replaced by the electron cloud model, which is a more accurate description of atoms. Could we be wrong? Yes, but the nature of science is such that it can accept its mistakes and improve on its knowledge.
Chen19960615 1 month ago
@NoAtheists Like I said, there are alternative methods for proof besides direct observation. We cannot see an atom in the conventional sense, but we know electrons, neutrons, and protons exist because of their effects which are observable. I dont have enough knowledge to go into specific detail yet, but I can provide another example. The existance of black holes are accepted by most scientists, but because they suck in light itself, no one could see it. But we can observe the effects
Chen19960615 1 month ago
@NoAtheists Whether or not birds came from dinosaurs cannot be 100% proven, but the reason people believe it is not based on faith, but because it can be inferred. If you believe in the fact of evolution, then you believe that species gradually change over time. There are fossil records of dinosaurs with feathers on their wings, and so there is good reason to believe that birds evolved form dinosaurs.
Chen19960615 1 month ago
@NoAtheists There is evidence. Take for example gravity, it is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that, well, when you drop something on Earth, it will fall down. The theory of gravity is an explanation for how it works. A scientific theory is by definition tested, and thus supported by evidence. The evidence for the modern theory of Einsteinian gravity lies in the fact that it correctly predicted the eratic orbit of Mercury that could not be accounted for by Newtonian gravity
Chen19960615 1 month ago
@NoAtheists I hope you are just trolling, but in the case that you are not, how else would you explain the world? Just because you have not seen something, does not mean it does not exist. There are other methods of providing evidence. This is what separates religion from science. Scientific beliefs are based on evidence, and so on the contrary, some beliefs are based on logic.
Chen19960615 1 month ago
@NoAtheists You could, if you had EVIDENCE. The hole point of the FSM is to show how STUPID is to believe in creationism in contrast to a theory with "Overwhelming Evidence" as the letter said. Evolution is a fact. God is not. That is why you require faith to believe in God, because you don't have evidence to prove that, in fact, He exists. I agree with your last statement with the religion part, however I'd like you to try to prove why science is bullshit, although I do find it hard for you.
pablomurga 1 month ago
Seems Legit!
mrjohnyrocketballsac 2 months ago
There is not God but the Flying Spaghetti Monster a his prophet is Bobby Henderson!
mrsimoncrow 2 months ago
RAmen
CrazyBlackJesus 2 months ago
I find it funny that YEARS of attempting logical, scientific arguments, that don't insult the intelligence of Christians, DIDN'T work. The only effective way to combat their illogical fantasies is WITH ILLOGICAL FANTASIES! The merits of atheism and the scientific method, sadly, needed to be presented this way to those archaic members of society that cling to Goad and Jesus. Flying Spaghetti Monster, all the way! Now, which way to the library so I can learn about science?
punctualbird 2 months ago
I swear by His Noodlyness, The Eight "I Really Rather You Didn'ts" are far superior to the ten commandments.
CrayZDude2 2 months ago
Flying spaghetti monsterism makes just as much sense as any other religion :)
peteq1972 3 months ago
sounds like a theist reading
colossus3200 4 months ago
at least let someone read the letter who CAN READ.
sarxpoker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is a spirit, an immaterial conscious being. All things in the universe consists of matter and/or energy, so if God isn't matter, is energy by definition. Energy is the capacity to do work, is eternal, omnipresent, wasn't created and can't be destroyed, can create matter, was the only thing present before the BB, and the energy required to make the universe must had been powerful. All these match Biblical descriptions of God. He wants us to elevate our consciousness to the next level, is real
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
[You said though that since something cant be explained its not unexplainable. The same fits for religion.]
Religion claims to know how everything started, right now.
Those theories do not claim to know.
One takes faith, the other evidence, thats why the theories are not concrete, and not everyone thinks they are correct. You are so damn deluded, it would be funny if you were a troll, but your not, so it's kinda sad :(
If you want creationism in school, provide evidence, thats it.
ThatFuckingAtheist 5 months ago
[-I say its taught by faith for this same reason, there is no proof, no evidence, no laws in physics explain any of it,-]
Stop. It is not "taught by faith because we can't explain how it happened", it is taught because we know it DID happen.
Issac Newton did not have to create mechanics to explain how gravity works to know that gravity happened.
Kinin4 5 months ago
If we allow Creationism to be taught as science, why shouldn't we allow all other religious origins to be taught as science? We'd end up with very confused children, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Shinto, Ancient Greek, Aztec, Miyan & Norrisist theories of universal origin are just as equally valid as Intelligent Design
Tarynus 5 months ago
Either the theory of evolution shouldnt be taught in school, or both creation and evolution should be taught plain and simple. They are both religion by definition and both contain an overwhelming amount of faith. "Flying spaghetti monster" how about stop worshiping Dawkins and come up with your OWN ideas for once.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross Where's your original idea?
stiv70 5 months ago
@stiv70 Your going to have to be more specific, I have many original ideas.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross But for some reason you choose to express none of them here?
stiv70 5 months ago
Comment removed
Kinin4 5 months ago
@KesslersCross
Do you have any reason to believe that "Evolution" is a religion?
Religious people believe what they believe because their "God" tells them to.
People who accept evolution do so because of the evidence...not because Darwin or Dawkins tells them to.
Two totally different things.
If you can point out even a SINGLE THING that a scientist "belives by faith", the first thing they would do is stop believing it. Evolution is a fact. The "Theory" of evolution is also widely accepted.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@Kinin4 " a SINGLE THING " We can start with how it all began. Somehow by faith the majority of scientist believe that nothing became something. It defies laws of physics. There was no time, no space, no matter and somehow an explosion happened and thus began everything. Is that not what is taught?
KesslersCross 5 months ago
Comment removed
Kinin4 5 months ago
@KesslersCross
[-Somehow by faith the majority of scientist believe that nothing became something. It defies laws of physics.-]
Except the laws of physics do not apply OUTSIDE that "something". So your protest against it is fallacious.
And it is very much NOT "by faith". They see the universe expanding, which leads them to logically infer that it, at one point, was something the size of a marble, which suddenly expanded.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@KesslersCross
Also, there are many different ideas and hypothesis that scientists are studying to see HOW it could have happened. That's why there is no Theory as to how something came from nothing, but only Hypothesis. Scientists recognize the dilemma, I assure you; and they do not take anything on "faith".
Kinin4 5 months ago
@Kinin4 By faith, they believe that after millions of years life formed from minerals in rocks. If it is a hypothesis, then it is the only one they teach. If its just a hypothesis and a theory, then it has no part in the education system but it is taught all over as an acceptable theory for truth.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross
What? Can you give me a source where they say we came from "rocks"?
It is not taught as "an acceptable theory for truth", it is taught as a scientific conjecture. Nothing more, nothing less.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@Kinin4 Sorry, came from minerals, Ill look it up again but I do have a source that it says minerals from rocks. Maybe at the college you went to but it sure wasnt at mine. It was pushed as truth because it was widley accepted. It was taught with a hint of theory but overall, it was believed to be the start.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross
[-It was pushed as truth because it was widley accepted.-]
And how does this make Evolution a religion?
You'll protest that the suicide terrorists do not reflect on your religion.
Well, I protest that ignoramuses do not reflect on Evolution. Evolution is a fact; we know it happened, and is happening.
It is no religion.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@Kinin4 You jumped to conclusions like most atheist. What makes it a religion is the definition noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. So its religion because it fits into that catagory. It contains faith because science has no idea how it began but insists upon the big bang theory. Evolution has not been 100 percent proven, if it was, it wouldnt be a theory.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KesslersCross
[-What makes it a religion is the definition noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. So its religion because it fits into that catagory.-]
How the heck does atheism fit into that?
Atheism is not a belief (it's the rejection of one), nor does it attempt to explain ANYTHING.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@KesslersCross
[-It contains faith because science has no idea how it began but insists upon the big bang theory.-]
That is not faith. They know that the Big Bang happened, they just don't know what caused it or what came before it. You can know an event happened, without knowing how the event happened, and not rely on faith. The evidence for the Big Bang Theory is overwhelming.
Big Bang Theory: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe."
Kinin4 5 months ago
@Kinin4 Well, not for the sake of arguing im going to have to disagree.1.What exploded 2.Where did the matter come from that it teaches exploded 2.Where did the laws that govern everything come from 4.Where did the energy come from 5.Conservation of angular momentum says that if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment,objects will all spin the same direction. then why do 2 planets spin backwards. Also,
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross
1.) We don't know.
2.) We don't know.
3/4.) We don't know.
5.) So? The planets were formed AFTER the Big Bang.
You see, you're asking questions that do not pertain to whether the Big Bang actually happened. You're simply pointing out all the things we DON'T know, which has no bearing on what we DO know. You should join the field of science so you can help figure those out, and give us more answers, such as HOW the Big Bang happened. :)
Kinin4 5 months ago
@Kinin4 So they know that it happened, but know nothing about it...so how did it happen when none of it works. Im really not trying to pick or anything or get on your nerves, it just sounds so...stupid to me. Im not calling you stupid, But the theory sounds so far fetched to me.I say its taught by faith for this same reason, there is no proof, no evidence, no laws in physics explain any of it, but we are supposed to just make a leap of faith and believe it.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KesslersCross
[-So they know that it happened, but know nothing about it...so how did it happen when none of it works.-]
What "doesn't work"?
All the Big Bang Theory says is that the Universe suddenly expanded. This is an observable fact. The BBT claims nothing past that.
[-it just sounds so...stupid to me.-]
Ignorance is not stupidity in science.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@KesslersCross You do not know what the word theory means. Secondly, the theists explanation is logicly more improbable, because you are adding not only another step: God>universe, but a SUPERNATURAL step. We say that ?>universe, and we are working to find that out, you claim to know what ? Is, since you make the claim, you must prove your claim, you dont get to say "I as a layman human, think that x is improbable, therefore x is God" no sir, that is not how science works, and never will work.
ThatFuckingAtheist 5 months ago
@ThatFuckingAtheist The definition of supernatural is relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws. So, everything that I asked fits directly into the catagory according to definition. So to to accept the big bang would be just as much believing in a "supernatural" force as believing that God created everything without any answers of how. So which ever answer you want to fill in for X is your choice, but both are just as religious.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross There is evidence for the big bang, there is no evidence for God, end of story.
Redshifting, the micorwave backround etc. all point to a expansion a while back.
Attempting to bring both claims down to the same level, is a red flag for someone who has no proof for their claim in the first place, it's like saying "Oh yea? Well atheism is a religion too!"
Instead of going, "Oh yea? Well whether or not you accept the BBtheory, its still religious!"
Try and prove your point.
ThatFuckingAtheist 5 months ago
@ThatFuckingAtheist If there was evidence for the big bang then you could answer my questions, which you cant. Red shift and microwave background is not evidnece for a big bang, it is evidnece for the second law of thermal dynamics which follows my 3 question that cant be answered, where did the laws come from that govern anything in physics? It is religious by definition which is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. It is a belief, not a fact.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross Well sorry, im not a goddamn scientist, but in any case, everyone that has attempted to answer you questions, you have just blocked them out, and if you really think your slanted preconcieved notions that have just formulated questions that have not been explained yet, in order to try and make science look stupid, your wrong. If we cant explain somthing, its unexplained, not some hole for non scientific religion to crawl is damn way into. And if your god cared hed clear it up now.
ThatFuckingAtheist 5 months ago
@ThatFuckingAtheist I hate typing these things because no one can decern anything about the other person and it seems like im coming off as this " ha ha in your face science looses" type thing and thats not what im getting at. Im logically looking at the situation and simply seeing it as invalid.No, I didnt come up with this, just like you didnt come up with the big bang or evolution.You said though that since something cant be explained its not unexplainable. The same fits for religion.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross re·li·gion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The fact of evolution explains why life is so diverse. The big bang show that a long time ago a subatomic particle expanded. [1/2]
ThatFuckingAtheist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[-Evolution has not been 100 percent proven, if it was, it wouldnt be a theory.-]
that is THE MOST ignorant creationist argument. I expected better of you.
1.) A Theory is just a model for explaining our universe, Gravity is a "Theory". Your definition of Theory and science's definition of Theory are quite different. Think of it like "Music Theory".
2.) There is difference between "Evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". the Theory is Natural Selection, the fact is Evolution.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@KesslersCross You said "Evolution has not been 100 percent proven, if it was, it wouldnt be a theory.".
You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Not only has evolution been proven but they utilize it repeatedly in the study and advancement of biological science. You also have no idea what a theory means in a scientific context. Let me attempt to enlighten you.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KesslersCross James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combatting cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of EVOLUTIONARY theory.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross In fact, EVOLUTION is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a DAILY basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalize observed data and prepare applications.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism. In 2006, New Scientist reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is between 95--99% depending on the primate.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[21] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross Many Creationists prefer to state that Micro-evolution is valid and Macro-evolution is not. The only reason that Micro-E is accepted by Creationists is because it has been proven repeatedly under controlled conditions and there are many examples of Micro-E that we can view in everyday life. Macro-E is not accepted since it would then be confirming that Creation was inaccurate. (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" are not recognized as sub-groups of evolution by the biological scientific community...there is only "evolution". PubMed(dot)gov reports that there are 179 publications on "Macro-E", 341 publications on "Micro-E" and 247,308 publications on "evolution". Even the "platypus" has 414 publications...so there are more articles about one animal than Micro-E or Macro-E.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross We cannot possibly 'prove' what is considered Macro-E because these changes take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, there is no mechanism which limits genetic change over time. What the two categories truly signify is the limits of any particular human's *belief*. This would be considered a non-existent division between 'believable' and 'unbelievable' based on religious 'faith' from a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross Atomic Theory, Theory of Matter and Energy, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Theory of Evolution, Theory of Quantum Mechanics, Theory of Relativity, Theory of Light Energy, Theory of Electromagnetism, Theory of Radioactivity, Theory of Molecular Bonds, Theory of Homeostasis, Theory of Gravity, etc..
These are all theories also...but only evolution and the Big Bang are disputed. The reason is because they conflict with a 2,000 year old holy book.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE, 'theory' means speculation or 'unproven conjecture'. The definition for 'theory' in a scientific context is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate FACTS and LAWS and tested hypotheses"; 'true in fact and theory'." (cont)
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross Here is another example: "a logical, systematic set of principles or explanation that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and HAS STOOD UP AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IT FALSE. A scientific theory can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances."
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross As you can see, theory is defined differently in science. It doesn't go FROM a THEORY and get 'promoted' TO a LAW. You cannot say "It's ONLY a theory" when you are speaking of the scientific meaning.
I have a large amount of additional evidence that I can post if you would still like to continue debating the validity of evolution. Evolution is a fact...there is no way to dispute it. Let me know if you would like more detailed information with specific sources.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 So theory is defined differently when it is dealing with science? I have never heard of that, or seen a distinction in the definitions. Just a question then, why is evolution still defined as a theory? Or has it recently been promoted to fact? I see a lot of scientific conclusions in evolution, and dont have a problem with it either except a few things just like the big bang.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross If you Google "Scientific meaning of theory" then you can see for yourself. The Big Bang Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Just like any alleged explanation of abiogenesis has nothing to do with it either. You might want to peruse the information with a little more depth since I answer your question in my comments. They incorporate facts and laws in theories.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross Also, the reason that the Big Bang appears to have happened is due to the dispersion of microwave radiation and the fact that all galaxies are moving away from what appears to be a singular point if you extrapolate the movement backwards.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@KesslersCross By the way, I just wanted to say that I am rather impressed at your reaction to my information...it appears that you may have an open mind.
You would be surprised at the reaction that I normally receive from most religious people. They don't even consider the large amount of information that I may post....most just automatically disregard it because it conflicts with their idea of reality.
CynicalSkeptic1 5 months ago
@CynicalSkeptic1 Oh sure, lol most people take me the wrong way when I start talking about why I dont persoanlly buy into evolution but its strictly for scientific reasons. I like to study it. I know it always goes from if evolution is true into does God exist. There are very close subjects but proving evolution does not prove of disprove God so I really dont understand why it always crosses that line. I mean, the Bible is very vague of how God did it so whats the point of the argue.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross You're pretty stupid.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@Drgamedood Uhhuh, and that is why you have NO answers for my questions...sound reasoning there idiot.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross he's not a very good reader, he talks free form much better
tomcornhole 4 months ago
"Do you have any evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster DOESN'T exist?!"
AnAtheistAccount 6 months ago
This totaly explaines me Love for spaghetti ...Thanks Gaint Spaghetti Monster!
Dezstrange 6 months ago
This religion is stupid and wacky. There is only one God. All Hail Lord Xenu!
batdamnm 6 months ago 3
Is this the normal reading skill of an adult?
jookypic 6 months ago 3
well if you want to include all versions of pirates we should be in an ice age due to all the internet standing pirates lol (using your logic of course)
Xlivesforever 6 months ago
"" if it were to be proven true then your god doesn't sound like someone worth spending an eternity with ""
precisely my point. u dont want God to be real if that is what he is like. And God lets u go into blindness until the end where you will be exposed as utterly evil and wanting and deserving hell. Hell is for all those that wanna play God seeking their own will and their own glory, while there will and glory are utterly evil.
j919or 7 months ago
@j919or dude talk like a normal person. re word your words so i can understand what your point is
PaperBryce 7 months ago
@j919or What I want has no impact on whether something is real. You haven't your god exists so it makes no difference to me what they think or plan or do. One thing is clear though, which is that you clearly have no backbone, kneeling out of fear, I pity you. The funny thing is that if it turns out Allah or whomever is the true god, we both burn. See you there.
BravoP085 7 months ago
@BravoP085 ""no backbone, kneeling out of fear, I pity you""
If my creator wanted me to kneel out of fear id be an idiot to resist. But He doesnt even require that. I dont kneel and I have no fear of God. I do yield to His presence/His SPirit within me and find that to be exhilorating.
j919or 6 months ago
@BravoP085 ""Allah or whomever is the true god, we both burn""
There is one God and many teaching about God. I experience God each day. Allah or whomever are not teachings that God is experiencible/knowable. Therefore those teachings are neither verifiable. The teaching of Jesus is and he has verified His teaching with His very presence.Therefore you dont need to be an intellectual to know God. His presence confirms his teaching with joy love and peace.Which i never had until Jesus in my life
j919or 6 months ago
this is sad, i dont understand how something as silly as this can fill the minds of intellegent human beings. no one should get into this , if no one can see him how do they know he is made out of noodles??? its really stupid and can someone tell me when this was all discovered?? why do we use AD and BC cuz were realating to when Christ was born and his resurrection . we dont have ND or BN for before noodle and noodle death. this is just stupidity on behalf of the world.
PaperBryce 7 months ago
""believe in a being you cannot see ""
God gives you evil children of satan enough evidence for you to come to Him and yield to His right to control ur life if that is what you so want. ANd for those that dont want God, he leaves enough pieces missing to allow you to reason God out of ur consciousness.So the atheist movement could be being used by God to polarize the believers and non believers. "He sent them a great delusion that they believe the lie, who took pleasure in unrighteousness"
j919or 7 months ago
@j919or Calling people 'evil children of satan."
^ Here's the local representative of Christianity for us ^
BravoP085 7 months ago
@BravoP085 Consider it an eternal heads up
j919or 7 months ago
@j919or We consider it akin to what comes out every other religion: You can't prove it, so we don't believe it, and if it were to be proven true then your god doesn't sound like someone worth spending an eternity with in the first place, let alone worthy of worship, more like someone who commits atrocities surpassing even those of Hitler and Stalin or Mao. Indeed, if your god was true, most lowly humans would seem to have more mature views of morality and logic, and intelligence in general.
BravoP085 7 months ago
@BravoP085 "You can't prove it, so we don't believe it""
There is no such thing as absolute proof of anything, esp. to those that dont want to believe it. They will attack any proof presented to them. We are dealing with ancient history and any such history is difficult to prove but people accept Julius ceasar as real when there is way more proof that Jesus is real. You have decided that Jesus is not worthy of ur worship and therefore you reveal bias. You are hopeless.
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or
Jesus has zero contemporaries, zero. No one that wrote the bible was around when he was. Jesus also claims miracales. The more outrageous the claim, the larger burden of proof.
"His teaching with His very presence." All religions feel their god. Your beliefs are no different. The bible haas many contradictions and has very immoral teachings.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 6 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Not sure which, of the anachronism or the belief that no one existed alongside Jesus is worse. Read your posts before you submit them.
theantiantichrist 6 months ago
@theantiantichrist
none of his contemporaries wrote the bible. You could clealry tell what i meant, no need to nit pick.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 6 months ago
@j919or
[-There is no such thing as absolute proof of anything, esp. to those that dont want to believe it.-]
1.) "Absolute proof" is meaningless and unattainable for ANYTHING. No one is asking for ABSOLUTE proof, just proof that isn't concocted out of a delusion.
2.) I have no preconceived notions about whether I "want" to believe in god or not. If he is true, then I would most CERTAINLY want to believe in what is true.
Now it's your turn to prove his existence. Good luck with that.
Kinin4 5 months ago
all hail the noodley one!
joewarar12 7 months ago 4
@joewarar12 Ramen, brother.
Grey13Human 6 months ago 24
@Grey13Human May His noodley appendages touch you, my fellow Pastafarian. May you go to heaven and enjoy the stripper factory and holy beer volcano. Ramen!
xJoeEDangerouslyx 6 months ago 10
ramen!!
ace6664 7 months ago 2
RAmen, brother.
OJSimsonStoleMyfrito 7 months ago
listening to this guy try to read is insuffrable
skitzo429 7 months ago 4
fuck them jesus is god!
oohrah1996 8 months ago
@oohrah1996 Fuck you, spaghetti is god.
assassin186 8 months ago
@assassin186 no!! stop smokeing pot
oohrah1996 8 months ago
@oohrah1996 I don't understand why I must have be on drugs to be a Pastafarian. Our religion is just as believable as yours, or anybody else's, if not more believable. Do you not wish to ascend to heaven with the beer volcano and stripper factory? I hope that some day you will be touched by his noodly appendage.
assassin186 8 months ago 29
@assassin186 lol appendage...
Flashlight1996 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assassin186
[-Evolution has not been 100 percent proven, if it was, it wouldnt be a theory.-]
Your definition of Theory and the scientific definition of Theory are obviously different. Gravity is "just a theory".
In science, a Theory is just a model that accurately predicts outcomes and explains our reality after undergoing rigorous testing and examination.
There is Evolution, which is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution, which is the engine of Natural Selection.
Kinin4 5 months ago
@oohrah1996 no hes not ,i am god AMEN
badslabber 7 months ago
@badslabber suck it!!
oohrah1996 7 months ago
@oohrah1996 SUCK WHAT ?
badslabber 7 months ago
i love that drawing
NinjaFanGirl 8 months ago
first this now the jedis are roaming europe. LOL whats next thor the god of thunder actually exist? atheist or science or whatever you believe this is stupid. the human race believed in many gods since ancient times, no one can say which was real anymore, now we are believing in a spaghette monster? did scooby doo help you with this imagination?
k00LGuY671 8 months ago
@k00LGuY671 it's a joke! don't you get it??????
CarolinaSantacruzO 8 months ago
@CarolinaSantacruzO I stand corrected.
k00LGuY671 8 months ago
@k00LGuY671 /Facepalm.
Lukege15 8 months ago
@Lukege15 ouch >,>
k00LGuY671 8 months ago
@k00LGuY671 You're not a particualy intelligent individual, are you?
Lukege15 8 months ago
@Lukege15 no not really, I watch too many science fiction. But at least I can spell the word "particularly". >.>
k00LGuY671 8 months ago
"God is real" - Biologist "If god wasn't real, how could I exist?" - Doctor "Dinosaur bones is just a trick sent by god to test our faiths in god...OBVIOUSLY."- Scientist "If god didn't exist, I would have no reason to hate you."- U.S. Surgeon General "Atheists seem to think that there is no creator, if that is true, how do you poor folks explain the catsup and bologna you eat for dinner every night?"- Barack Obama
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
What is it with Atheists and spaghetti monsters, and fairies, and santa claus? Sheesh they must like fire and brimstone.
smurfboywv 8 months ago
@smurfboywv What is with you condemning people to hell?
Revolution2pointO 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Revolution2pointO You haven't read the Bible have you? All who do not believe in their Lord God, and all who refuse to, will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
smurfboywv 8 months ago
i found the original document and it is written in normal intelligible english. so... this guy needs a new job!
10exodus 8 months ago 2
I have a fifth grader who reads better than this guy...
umunhum4fun 8 months ago 3
not a very good reader, is he?
- concerned citizen
lennyhipp 8 months ago 3
It all makes so much sense.
PotatoSol 8 months ago
Who cares about him stammering and pausing while he reads? Some people are just bad at reading aloud. It doesn't mean he can't read perfectly fine to himself.
berniebay 9 months ago
@berniebay yea it takes more work for your brain to process the words thus allowing your speech, than if your just silently reading. some people are developed more then others
TyeDye07 8 months ago
I think the grammar and word arrangement was shit, making it difficult to read. That or he really just can't read, could be either one.
Momentimum 9 months ago
Get ad blocker. It is more powerful than God.
Jerphun 9 months ago 30
'at the duuuh duuh duuh' ...
GODDAMN! LEARN 2 READ, BRO.
mutedmakequiet 9 months ago
The FOOL has said in his heart, there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. Corrupt are they, they have done abominable works. There is none that doeth good.
LincolnOnTheWeb 10 months ago 5
"Hey mommy how do you know that the invisible spaghetti monster doesn't exist?"
"Because dear, there is no proof of any sort of ridiculous creature! Seeing as this creature is invisible the default position is to disbelieve in such a far-out idea. The burden of proof is on the positive claim" The moral of the story: PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS! THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU FOR YOU ARE MAKING EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM! BTW YOU ARE ALL JUVENILE FOR BELIEVING IN THE INVISIBLE SPAGHETTI MONSTER! ROFLMAO.
FallofDarkness55 10 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Dawkins provides quran 2:6-7 here: /watch?v=xtjwtmjbOKE
faro0485 10 months ago
FSM FTW!
geniusjas87 10 months ago
what kind of a fucking name is that? seriously? flying spaghetti monster? sounds like a bunch of pretentious thirteen year old douchefags made it. I fucking hate it when atheists say that, "flying spaghetti monster" and his "noodley appendage" bullshit. is that supposed to be funny or something? is that supposed to make fun of religion? is it supposed to be cheeky and cute? that's right up there with "blue screen of death" and "in soviet russia..." jokes
marcsman229 10 months ago
@marcsman229 It just shows us how immoral against truth these people are. The believers are not allowed to joke and lie. That's a grave sin. But of course, irreligious people have no concept of the moral high of telling the truth especially to something you believe. And thus the religion that teaches mankind to become religious, they end up morally superior in this regard. But we thank the God for showing us their moral character.
faro0485 10 months ago
@faro0485 Meh, I don't believe in God either. Everything Josephus said was a farce. The God in the Old Testament completely changed in the New Testament. Slavery was even considered in the Old Testament considering that God should've just said that we weren't going to rely on slavery forever or some sort of foreshadowing. Christianity is very contradictory and Jesus' miracles are based on hearsays.
marcsman229 10 months ago 3
@marcsman229 /watch?v=vjDGcCcvDC0
faro0485 10 months ago
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing....For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and the Greeks foolishness....not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1Corninthians)
missionarymayn 10 months ago
We must recognize and be touched by the great noodly appendage
MrJCLawler 10 months ago
@MrJCLawler Busted by noodles.
faro0485 10 months ago
If 'God' to some people is so real and obvious in their lives...it's it only fair to say that I believe that the FSM is just as real and obvious.
TheBlackmentos94 10 months ago 5
Flying Spaghetti Monster is the true god. All kneel on his power! Naow!
rodasnepervilo 11 months ago 37
The flying spaghetti monster and his noodly appendages are nothing more than just a myth. In other words, extraordinary claims are a myth unless if they're backed up by extraordinary evidence. The bible is a man made book therefore it is NOT even close to being classified as extraordinary evidence.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
Hooked on Phonics broseph. Check it out.
Microverse1 11 months ago
Shows how stupid you guys are to actually except this, and mock our God. Such a sad atheist..
bvsandman 11 months ago
@bvsandman when telling somebody that they are stupid for not believing in something for which there is no proof of, at least use correct spelling as to not come off as a complete retard. *ACCEPT* not except
rman12117 11 months ago
@bvsandman So sad, so sad... 90% of Christians are so sad... Plus you mispelled.
KimboRamboFin 11 months ago
@bvsandman You just fulfill the pastafarian prophecy. You can choose your blasphemous side and worship false Gods if you want. But know this, the FSM boiled for your sins and if you do not accept his forgiveness you will boil for eternity after your death...
2CSST2 11 months ago
@bvsandman Accept*
BlckSbthMan 11 months ago
@bvsandman Such a sad Christian. lol.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 My faith is based upon experience. I'm sorry I don't treat the bible like a science book like most atheists.
bvsandman 11 months ago
@bvsandman Experience with what? paranormal crap. lol. And your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Atheists don't treat the Christian bible like a science book. Atheists use textbooks to convey accurate scientific information. The people that do treat the Christian bible like a science book are the fundamental protestants i.e. biblical literalists who think the earth is 6000 years old. lol.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Actually some atheists take the bible literal and say well they say the earth was flat! That's making the bible look like a science book. Clearly it's not flat. But a lot of paranormal stuff can't be solved using scientific methods. Science has been wrong with many things that God can prove. You insulting me makes no difference to my beliefs, as does your failed generalizations.
bvsandman 11 months ago
@bvsandman There are no atheists that believe the Earth is flat. In fact I've never encountered any atheists who think this irrational. Secondly, superstition doesn't exist. (It makes me wonder if you people are on LSD.) lol. "Science has been wrong with many things that God can prove"- Really? Show me the proof then. lol. If you can't then you're just another irrational person who uses bald assertions a lot. Science has been right about everything so far. You're just another religious nut! lol.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Well, If scientists that are in said subject of the big bang and are credible in the fields, if they don't believe in the Big bang or evolution, does that mean those scientists who give proof of the theory not making sense are morons? No.. And I never said you believe the earth is flat. That is something atheists use to say "Da bible is wrong drrrr" most atheists if not all say everything in the bible is wrong. What about archaeology? Specific places/prophecies are true. Jesus.
bvsandman 11 months ago
@bvsandman Go to school and become educated that way you can make sense. I don't believe the Earth is flat. You got that right, but I was making a generalization by saying that all atheists don't believe the Earth is flat. Atheists have never said the Earth was flat, EVER. Where do you get your info? Out of your ass? lol. Quit taking LSD so fucking much.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 /Sigh, the normal atheist taking words a theist says and twisting them. If you learned how to read, you would clearly see I never said Atheists said the world was flat. I used that as an example of what atheists target in the bible when most people, even atheists thought the world was flat due to the lack of technology. Now the sooner you read the Bible with an open mind, you might be able to see how the bible is true. God didn't write the bible, man did, it is Gods word..
bvsandman 11 months ago
@bvsandman Due to humanity's intellect and advanced technology, we have discovered a lot of things about nature that we didn't know before. Some of this dates back to Copernicus, when he found out that the Earth was not the center of the universe therefore discovering that the Earth was actually round. My point is humanity's scientific discoveries are converging in on a full understanding of the universe without invoking a god.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 And due to humanity's intellect... economy go boom?
faro0485 10 months ago
@faro0485 That's irrelevant. I'm talking about human achievements due to the advancement of technology. In 100 years or so, humans will find the unified theory! And they will discover that the notion of god was an absurd way to explain our existence and our perceptions of reality!
FallofDarkness55 10 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 There are several Unified Field Theories already in existence. Question, how have you been prepairing to shield your electrical equipments against the coming Solar Storm by the end of next year?
faro0485 10 months ago
@faro0485 First of all I do maintenance around my house which includes unplugging any electrical devices that I don't use in a large amount of time. Secondly, I don't think the solar storm will be that huge seeing as the solar storm in 2001 wasn't that huge. These solar events happen in an 11 year cycle! It's the 2012 hysteria that makes this solar storm bigger than it is. You need to stop doing drugs! LOL
FallofDarkness55 10 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 NASA does drugs?
faro0485 10 months ago
@faro0485 ROFLMAO!!!!!!! At least NASA does logic and science drugs whereas you nutty creationists are literally doing LSD, crack, or what not.
FallofDarkness55 10 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 That is a slanderous and irrelevant accusation. /watch?v=xtjwtmjbOKE So your protecting your equipment, what about your code? Is the legacy of your code been given a chance to grow? Are you providing measures to the longevity of your legacy?
faro0485 10 months ago
@faro0485 YOU'RE DELUSIONAL! STOP TAKING LSD OR IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK WITH THE DOCTOR IF YOU HAVE SCHIZOPHRENIA! THE QURAN IS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BOOK! THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN EITHER OF THOSE BOOKS TO CONVINCE ME THAT THERE IS A SUPERNATURAL BEING WATCHING OVER US! IF THESE BOOKS CONVINCED YOU THEN WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN HARRY POTTER? SUPERMAN? SPIDERMAN? TELEPATHY? YOU'RE DELUSIONAL. ROFLMAO!
FallofDarkness55 10 months ago