ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
His lack of religious belief undoubtedly produced the routine lack of consideration, even cruelty of his characters towards others. I'm always surprised how many Seinfeld fans haven't noticed the mean streak that runs right through the series.
one child of GOD can destroy the work of one thousand evil spirits 2 children of GOD can set ten thousand to flight, and 3 children of JESUS CHRIST is a force the devil can not stand in he has to fall to his knee's BECAUSE HIS CREATOR JESUS CHRIST IS THERE. in us an with us.JESUS kingdom is for ever growing there is no end to it. so you better decide which side you want to be on because GOD made hell for the angels but hell is enlarging itself to receive the wickedness,
darkness has never won a battle over JESUS THE CHRIST and never will.this is all a proving ground to give all that come through the matrix/ are womb had to put that in for all the alien lover,the womb is called the matrix in the bible,and all that is to be born will make a choice, where way they will follow,those that follow darkness to there place,and those of light to there place,remember this GOD said one child of light come destroy the work of one thousand spirits of darkness,2 ten thousand.
and you all think your darwinism/marxism is foundational 2 old men that let there own children starve to death, give me a break you mean the 2 men in the 1600's the started Communism and Nazism movement that think that the plato theory was best for the world you mean them 2 men dream on people now that a damn fairy tell, that why we are in the hell we our in now in the world.you mean them 2 men that have caused wars to this day, that think only favored races should survive, them 2 men you love!!
@fisher99100 Darwin and Marx HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.....The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 while The Origin of Species was not published until 1859. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with marxism one way or the other.....Evolution is often used as a justification for the free market economy while it has been proven that marxism is simply a secularized version of the Book of Revelation. Ayn Rand, one of the free market's most ardent champions, despised christianity
But not Islam. Has anyone see Pitch Black with Vin Diesel. An interesting film. Islam will be here for a long, long time. That's a promise. It ain't over till Islam sings.
I tell you what, if Jesus, Moses and Abraham were Muslims, I think Christianity and Judaism are wasting their time in perpuating religions that have no authentic foundation. Think. Chritianity named after a man who NEVER claimed it. Judaism after some tribe somewhere in time. Islam =submission. To who? Ask yourself.
you have got to be kiddin me man and ape related ! there no way there is 3% differents in the dna structure, that like the distance from here to the sun, ther is no way ape can even be close to a relative to humans, and just because you think they look kind of like you does not make them related to you,and just because we our made up skin bone an nails like a lot of life out that does not mean we came from them, there is a better theoryGOD USED THE SAME MATERIAL'S TO MAKE US AS THE ANIMAL SIMPLE
in the next 300 yrs I think I hope its tomorrow but there to much missing yet so you all have plenty of time that if you dont die before you call on christ,because we all are eternal being we live forever well our body die but our soul live on it is changed,like a metamorpha and awaits a being forth by a creator that knows the mechanic of what it takes to restore the soul in a physical body I am getting way t deep for you all go to web site it will take you years to read an understand God bless
GO 2 OUR WEB SITE TO GET YOUR THINKING CHALLENGED IM THERE at godisjesuschrist,com and so is ever other creationist, Im the one they call bam bam cause I hammer stupid religions in the dirt like evolution an false Christianity and other religion that are just bogus I us to be a evolutionist but now Im a christian believer in Jesus christ he is GOD in the flesh and he coming back when all of us have made up our mind which way we want to go i think all that is to be born is coming to an end maybe
come on people you got to be smarter than this, every single thing you believe in is by faith there is only a little bit that is really fact evolution is by faith you got to believe its real there no proof,we never seen a monkey turn into a human our are by that matter 1 million of a human, let see it happen this time.the fossil record is a joke with all the fakes that have been made,let me tell you why you dont want a GOD because the idea of a GOD TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO CHAPS YOUR HIDE
AManOfSorrows, As a direct parallel to your list of scientists, I could provide a list of prominent fascists and nazis who were Roman Catholic. Would this show that the RCC nurtured fascism?
@markdami Georges Lemaître was a RC priest & the first scientist to propose the big bang theory. The Jesuits nurture learning in many fields: in fact it is a condition of entry into the order that applicants are academically competent to contribute to academic development - & before you try an "aha" the competence (nay the excellence) they expect is in non-theological fields; which is why some of the greatest scientists to come out of the Vatican are Jesuit priests.
AManOfSorrows, I was asking you to provide examples of scientific achievements that were caused by or only possible because of the RCC. You've merely given a list of scientists who happen to be Catholic. Do you see the difference?
I can think of many examples of the RCC retarding scientific progress. I don't *believe* it's ever done the opposite and promoted the search for scientific truth.
@markdami No! What I see is that you cannot substantiate your argument with hard (dare I say it, scientific?) evidence. Show me the many examples of the RCC actually retarding (as opposed to questioning) scientific progress: you can't because there aren't any.
@markdami RCC & RCC sympathetic scientists: John Philoponus; Bede, the Venerable; Leo the Mathematician; Hunayn ibn Ishaq; Pope Sylvester II; Hermann of Reichenau; Hugh of Saint Victor; Pope John XXI ; Roger Bacon; Thomas Bradwardine; Nicholas of Cusa; Nicolaus Copernicus; Michael Stifel; William Turner; Giordano Bruno; Johannes Kepler; Laurentius Gothus; René Descartes; Robert Boyle; Isaac Newton; Augustin Louis Cauchy; Gregor Mendel; Asa Gray; Louis Pasteur; Armand David; and...
@markdami ...Pierre Duhem; E. T. Whittaker; Georges Lemaître (a RC priest & the first to propose the big bang theory); Michael Polanyi; Stanley Jaki; Antonino Zichichi; Michał Heller; Francis Collins....to name but a few...
AManOfSorrows, Religion has nothing whatever to do with science except perhaps as an example of it's antithesis.
The great monotheistic religions start from a base of ignorance and progress absolutely nowhere. Poverty, utter poverty. Anybody who chooses to ignore the majesty and grandeur of science, choosing instead the wretched leavings of ignorant savages, is a pitiable fool.
@markdami This savagely ignorant appraisal of the facts of history only confirms the hypocrisy of scientific apologists who deny religion on supposedly scientific principles but then deny the relevance of facts when these contradict scientific revisionism: in other words, you're not only ignorant but pig-headedly so. Separating science and religion can only lead to a dystopic utopia where life is cheap and freedom no longer exists.
How come Larry David tirelessly mocks Christianity, but never Judaism? Gee, could it be because he's a Jew himself? So it's obviously not about religion, but the white man's religion that he resents even though the white man has given Jews safe harbor in this country. This recalcitrant Hebrew nee...
The only reason Ricky Gervais is an atheist is because he can't pull off pretending to be a Jew to get on in Hollywood, he's too ugly to be a Scientologist, he's the wrong color to get help from Eddie Murphy or the Wayans brothers, but he can as a born again atheist brown nose Larry David (who seems to be the only Hollywood big hitter prepared to back him). And if anyone looks like a Mong its you Ricky - people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at Subo!
And by the way...what does Larry David celebrate at Christmas? Hannukah! That most atheistic of holidays. The reason we Jews pan other faiths is because we are contemptuous of other faiths. We Jews don't call you gentiles - our Yiddish word for you is Shitza (yes, it means that) and the hebrew word means: beasts that walk upright. If we Jews were so enlightened explain Palestine and explain why every white role in Hollywood is played by a Jew - the rest are played by blacks, spanish etc
Religion was not created it was adopted and has evolved into spirituality. How did the Viking religion dominate mankind? How did Taoism dominate mankind? or Shinto? or Wicca? or even Satanism? For all its faults Roman Catholicism has given us literacy, universities to explore learning, courts to dispense justice and laws to protect the vulnerable. Islam has given us science, numeracy, architecture and commerce. Where would we be with atheism? Still in f***ing caves you morons!
@AManofSorrows Religion is the first attempt made by the human race to explain the world around us. However, like must such things, it is quite flawed. We have better ways of looking at reality now. It is time to move on. Clinging to its past glories gets us nowhere.
@seleroan Everything begotten of man is inherently flawed and that includes science. I agree that religion ought to evolve. But, you take mankind on a very dangerous path when you seek to separate science from what people believe or when you try to prove the superiority of either. Comparing apples & oranges is ludicrous. I believe that each has something to learn from the other and that an open understanding of the merits of each will foster real advances in knowledge.
@herbie747 Everything created artificially is inherently flawed. Scientists are disproving each others' theories and suppositions every single day. You would replace religion because you believe it is based on theory and opinion. But science is entirely based on theory and opinion because there is no science of interpretation of data. All interpretation is subjective and therefore subject to all of the flaws and idiosynchrasies of the person making the interpretation/s.
@Pigdowndog You cannot have enlightenment without belief. Every enlightened age has existed in the context of a belief system - the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Renaissance, the Founding Fathers of America, the Victorian Era, the fall of Nazism, the fall of Communism in Poland (Solidarnosk) and so on and so on. If atheism and science is your God move to North Korea and see what life in a warmongering godless state is really like.
@Pigdowndog The core of most belief systems is conceptual, not literal. Literal interpretation (& literal dissection of the conceptual) is the product of a poor education, ignorance and limited exposure to knowledge (the internet generation). Jesus was not a Christian, he was a reformist Jew who spoke of the folly of superstition and dogma. Pauline Christianity is to blame for the current expression of Jesus as a God King. Not all atheists are despots but all despots are atheists.
Pseudo-Semitic Zionist European Jews run the military campaign to wipe Palestine off of the map and from history. Many of these Jews are Atheist. All are anti-Christ.
Christians and Muslims regard Jesus a Messiah.
True Semitic Arabian Jews, Muslims and Christians shared Jerusalem in peace before the invasion of the pseudo-Semitic Zionist anti-Christs who bombed a Jerusalem hotel in 1946 murdering dozens of civilians.
The Zionists are largely descendants of Bolsheviks.
@Pigdowndog If you are going to take extremists as being universally representative of the whole and be valid, then my retort to that is that all scientists are inherently evil without no regard for the sanctity of life such as Mengele (Euthanasia); Paracelsus (creating slaves humanoids); Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer (nuclear Armageddon); Alfred Nobel (Military Grade Explosives); Trofim Lysenko; Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Euthanasia); Members of the Tuskegee Study;
If you feel the need to rant on with a list of names to give yourself an air of intellectualism, carry on, fill your boots, your pretentious waffling proves nothing.
It still doesn't change the fact that I've repeated so often to you, it's all bullshit.
One more time for it to sink in. IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.
@AManofSorrows Uhm... the god they believe in? He's a man they revere as a god. Sort of like Jesus. You say "THE God" in such a profound and yet meaningless way. Which god are you referring to? There are quite a few of them that people have and do believe in at this very moment.
@seleroan As I expected you have disappeared up the asshole of your own crass argument. Your words are the reason you are now straitjacketed into hissing & spitting like a tart. YOU identified Kim Il-Sung as a god - he probably is in the urban generic sense of that word; what he isn't however is a deity belonging to any developed or reasoned belief system. So even in North Korea he is unlikely to be seen as THE God - profound eh?
@AManofSorrows Not really. Because you haven't defined "developed or reasoned belief system" as anything other than your own. I don't identify Kim Il-Sung as a god. He is worshiped by the people of North Korea in much the same way as you worship your own. That you see their state-mandated religion as unreasoned and undeveloped but cannot see that your own parallels it in many areas is typical. "Their religion is wrong and mine is right." Why? Faith. You have no argument.
@seleroan You are talking out of your ass - by your logic Barney the Dinosaur is a God because little kids are addicted to watching his shows. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist & taking the concept of belief to ad ridiculum extremes does not change that. Your science fails you & until it stops failing you should keep your gobs shut about what is delusional & what isn't.
@AManofSorrows There is no science to religion. It is all faith and belief. It does us no good to take ancient belief systems and say we are still going to get some great knowledge out of them. What knowledge would that be exactly?
@wraith168 Again, you are being obtuse. Religion and science are simply different approaches to making sense of the unknown. At least religion acknowledges that it might have got it wrong or that some further revelation may be necessary to full knowledge; whereas science assumes it is always right (even when it is proven not to be). Without religion man would not have built Stonehenge/the Pyramids/the Acropolis/the Coloseum/the Library of Alexandria/the Jerusalem Temple etc etc etc
@AManofSorrows No they are not different approaches. Religion is based on ancient superstitions and ignorance of the world by ancient people.
"At least religion acknowledges that it might have got it wrong..."
Sorry but you are taking what science does not religion. Religion has to be beat over the head with the true until it final submits to it when they have something wrong and even then it fights when wrong.
@AManofSorrows Like many people of faith, you are taking a fault of religion and trying to pin it on science. Science is just the opposite of what you say. Other than the Jerusalem Temple, you can't claim the other structures would not have been build without religion. For instance, the Acropolis was a for defense (it is usually translated to Citadel). Maybe you meant Parthenon which was a temple.
@wraith168 Being a smart ass doesn't make you smart. Athens was built to worship Athene & its citizens all worshiped Athene. Indeed all ancient societies were motivated by their religious beliefs to create architecture worthy of their gods; as a by product of those investigations other technologies were discovered and developed. By contrast, societies fixated only on the science of survival have barely evolved from cave man days: African tribesmen; Australian aborigines etc etc.
@AManofSorrows You assign any advancement in knowledge, architecture, science, etc solely to religion. It is not always the case and as I have said, religion in many case works against knowledge and advancements once things start conflicting with religious doctrine.It has been a help AND hindrance to man. In modern times it seems to be more of a hindrance than help now. Established science is attacked and faith based replacements are touted.
@AManofSorrows Different religions are in constant conflict with each other making for dangerous situations throughout the world. Hell even differing ideas with the same basic religion is dangerous. People of the same basic faith fight among themselves (different sects of islam or christianity).
@wraith168 And scientists hold hands all day skipping around trees and singing Lennon's "Imagine" do they? Scientists are bitchier than a room full of supermodels on PMT day. Man doesn't need a reason to fight, merely an opportunity. There is a quote from the Bible that fits here: take the beam out of your own eye before you take issue with the speck in someone else's.
@AManofSorrows Yea but scientists general go suicide bombing the labs of those that disagree with them. They don't kill each other over beliefs.
When they don't agree, they go to there own labs and try to prove the other wrong. If they can't prove it wrong, it just makes the theory stronger and if they can, it gets rid of a theory that wasn't correct. In the process they make our knowledge and understanding better.
@wraith168 Scientists aren't meritocrats - how old are you, five? Scientists assert theories they cannot prove which become accepted until someone comes up with another theory which somehow becomes more popular and so on and so on until eventually science everywhere faces the grim reality that nobody was right & in fact all the theories were wrong ab initio. Like with Aids/Cancer/Global Warming and so on. And where did the terrorists get the technology to blow things up? Jesus?
@wraith168 To follow the logic of your argument would be to espouse the notion that scientific knowledge appeared out of thin air (a big bang?). This is specious reasoning at best. The truth is: religion has been the locomotive of science, motivated as Einstein conceded by a desire to touch the face of God. However science, as it always does, has become an errant child wanting to wander away from its parents and get into mischief - hence why we now have vivisection, euthanasia etc etc
@wraith168 If science has in recent years experienced a back lash from non-representative elements within religious groups it is because it has allowed itself to become associated with atheist dogma - a dogma which has all the hallmarks of the religious dogmas it claims to want to save us from. If science stayed out of religion this conflict need not exist but atheists/Dawkins have made lucrative careers out of kicking over this beehive solely to sell poorly written literature.
@AManofSorrows More ignorance on your part. I've told you what atheism is and there is no dogma attached. The backlash is from ancient bronze age superstitious religions trying to stay relevant and keep their followers blind to what is true around them.
@wraith168 To assert that God is a Delusion without ever proving the case that God does not exist sounds like a whole lotta dogma to me boy. And Catholicism started in the Bronze Age did it? Where did you learn your history from: Tom Cruise?
@wraith168 Again, you are either stupid or obtuse. I have not assigned all advancements in knowledge to religion! What I have said is that science & advancements in learning originate from & have evolved from religious thought. That science may have left its parent behind in several areas is beyond contention; but this has been acknowledged already by the Vatican & other religious belief systems where efforts are being made to catch up (& in many areas they have superseded).
@AManofSorrows No you are trying to say all science had its genesis in religion. I have shown that to be untrue. So either your a fucking moron or just choose to ignore what someone says to you. I vote for both. I really hate name calling but when you consistently do it... In any case, being that you have done that multiple times, I think we are finished. You have cease to be entertaining for me also. Someone else can continue to point out the fallacies your your arguments.
@wraith168 All science did have its genesis in religion; that is already proven beyond all reasonable doubt. A scientist doesn't have to believe in God to be a good scientist nor does a belief in God make a person a bad scientist. If atheists don't like living in greenhouses with smashed windows they shouldn't throw stones. Thank you for sharing your ignorance so unselfishly & freely, because it isn't worth anything. Muppet!
@wraith168 Superstition is not the same as religion at all. Consider sportsmen, say at the Superball: often they are extremely superstitious but they are, more often than not, unaffiliated to any religious belief. And again, you cannot take extremists as representative of the whole - take Islam: what actual percentage of world muslims are terrorists? Your approach is little more advanced than the good wives of Salem.
@wraith168 Belief is personal and subjective; as such it is inherently receptive to intelligent argument and persuasion. Some fringe elements within organized religion are actually afraid of believers and instead want adherents: people who accept regardless of their beliefs. I agree that these are dangerous elements and that they should be targeted specifically - but not by throwing the baby away with the bathwater.
@AManofSorrows "At least religion acknowledges that it might have got it wrong..." Sorry what?! HERETIC!!! Break out the torches!!! Seriously, though, are you trolling the non-believers now? I name thee troll-bait!
@AManofSorrows What exactly are you extolling as the "merits" of religion? There are merits to a lot of things. I can learn some of these from reading about Hercules or Perseus, for example. Most of them of any value have to do with the nature of heroism, how to spin a good yarn, and some minor points about human nature. Of little value would be claims about gods sitting on a mountain worrying at humanity. The parallels to modern religions are evident.
@seleroan You are but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. Your ramblings are as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
@AManofSorrows Okay, so I make a point in trying to interpret your meaningless drivel, and all you can do is call me an idiot? Well, I tell you what. Prove that God exists, and then we'll talk. Until then, I have nothing more to say to you.
@seleroan Prove that he does not - the maxim of every common law system is "he who asserts, must prove". It is atheists (such as Dawkins, another idiot) who have asserted that God does not exist - prove it then. You can't. If you were accused of being a rapist by the police, it would not be for you to prove that you were not; it would be for the police to prove that you were & if they had not evidence then you would be entitled to walk free. Atheists can't prove their case: period.
@AManofSorrows Wow. Just wow. Atheists are not making a positive claim. You say that God exists, I don't believe you. So, reasonably enough, I ask you to prove that he does. You say prove that he doesn't. This is a logic fallacy. That I would need to explain this to you shows pretty clearly that you don't understand the rules of logic that you are espousing. I am not surprised. Please, consider reading up on the subject before you make more of a fool of yourself.
@seleroan Science purports to be logically superior because its logic is said to comply with certain laws of science. So if science bases itself on laws then it should be but a small matter to comply with the law. The law provides that "he who asserts must prove". Dawkins asserted that belief in God was a delusion because God does not exist but then cannot prove that God does not exist; ergo, his argument fails as it does not comply with the law of proof. Period!
@AManofSorrows Actually "science, numeracy, architecture and commerce" have roots further back than islam. Though islam did help it along a great deal but at the point where the science started to dispute the religion, islam then covered its eyes and ears and stopped looking for the truth of science. As for the catholic church it did as much to stifle learning as it did to help. And also laws and courts and such go back much further than christianity.
@wraith168 Science was once (and for several thousand years) a search for a way to get closer to the Divine by deepening understanding of the nature of things. Where science has gone wrong is to assume that it is a God to be worshiped in place of the Gods of old.
@AManofSorrows Actually religions are basically made by ancient people to try to explain what they didn't understand (which was a lot). Things like where humans come from, how the world started, what happens after we die, etc. As humans gained more understanding of things and science advances, the need for such ancient superstition explanations are unnecessary. Unfortunately, religion in general is so ingrained in humans it is difficult for many to shake free of it's hold.
@wraith168 Science and religion were once synonymous, each feeding the others' search for the meaning of things. Religion was the locomotive of science for thousands of years. The only obstacle religion posed to science during that time was in terms of ethical study. Scientists however have always thirsted to study without regard to the implications: which is why we have nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, the exploitation of animals for experimentation etc etc
@AManofSorrows No not synonymous, once religion (specifically the roman catholic church) welded great control over nearly everything. Even kings and queens were weary of crossing the church. The obstacle was not in terms of ethical study. Coming out and saying something like the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and it revolved around the sun didn't have much to do with ethics.
@wraith168 The Roman Catholic Church evolved from the Roman Empire & was therefore an extension of the same philosophies, ethics & logic. Further applying Godwins Law to justify an irrational refusal to appreciate the contribution of the RCC to the development of knowledge does nothing to bolster your position. That medieval kings didn't like being denounced for fratricide is probably true but we wouldn't have population supporting economies or a welfare state without the RCC.
@wraith168 Unless you are confessing to me that you were anally raped by a priest I am at a loss why you are so vehemently anti-Christian. I should have a lot more respect for your arguments were you to acknowledge the role of Christianity (& indeed of Islam) in the intellectual development of the western world instead of trotting out crass tautologies about the bad things that have been done in the name of belief as if science were immune from the same iniquity.
@AManofSorrows I don't say that the RCC didn't contribute anything. I am saying they didn't contribute EVERYTHING as it seems you are asserting.
"a welfare state without the RCC"
Why not? You don't think any countries would come up with systems to support their citizens?
I am not anti-christians as much as I am anti-religion. It just so happens I run into many more christians than any other religion. I don't say it didn't contribute to science and such. cont...
@AManofSorrows I do say the christian religions did not give us all of the "the intellectual developments of the western world". Our modern knowledge was build on top of ideas and work from a multitude of sources. As was any knowledge that come from christianity and islam early on. What you don't want to recognize is that christianity and islam hurt advancements in knowledge also when that knowledge conflicted with religious doctrine. This was especially true with islam.
@wraith168 The evils associated with a polarization of science and religion are not dispelled by attacking all believers and denying their place in the future of mankind. It is this aspect of belief genocide that is strengthening those elements within organized religion that seek to either profit from or otherwise exploit such fears.
@AManofSorrows We have people in the 21st century trying to hold on to things like creationism or ID which has no basis in science and reject something like evolution in the face a massive amounts of evidence for it. This isn't trying to advance knowledge, it is trying to stifle it for the sake of faith. What was done in the past really is irrelevant. It's the actions of believers now that is of more importance to me.
@wraith168 If the evolutionists' agenda was merely to educate (instead of being a trojan horse for atheism) then they would be focusing on areas of agreement not areas of disagreement. The Bible clearly prescribes an order of arrival of events which corroborates aspects of evolutionary theory. The area of disagreement is therefore much narrower: the only difference being that believers believe God to be the trigger whereas scientists believe it was some sort of celestial fart.
@AManofSorrows You attribute evolution to atheism. There is no correlation. You don't have to be an atheist to believe evolution is true and you don't have to believe in evolution to be an atheist. There are many atheists that don't go with evolution. There are many theists that believe in evolution. It is about education. There is nothing "clearly" in the bible that prescribes any such thing. You can interpret the bible to fit or not fit evolution. Depends on who you talk to.
@AManofSorrows It is not much narrower. Again, it depends on who you talk to. There are those that take the bible literal. There are those that take it as just a guide. The order of arrive of events is bs. In the bible, everything came to be whole and fully formed. That in no way goes with evolution in which everything came to be with small changes over time. The bible does not belong in science classes. If you want to teach it in schools, then do it in literature classes.
@wraith168 Again, you are being obtuse. The vast majority of jews, muslims & christians see the Bible as a conceptual appreciation of the origin of everything. Christians are quite prepared to allow science to fill in the blanks. Georges Lemaître, a RC priest was the first scientist to propose the Big Bang Theory for God's sake.
"The bizarre phenomenon you describe is peculiar to the US" This is not entirely true. I have talked with people from all over the world that believe and try to push the agenda of creationism. This includes quite a few from your country. I am more concerned with those in the US though as they have a greater impact for me personally. I can't leave them be as long as they true to push to teach creationism in science class or as they push their religion on others.
"it's not as if your record in mathematical excellence equips you to criticize"
As you like to point out, you are generalizing here. And by this generalization, you seem to be trying to say I'm an idiot. Whatever the overall competence is in mathematics in the US, that doesn't include me. Personal attacks get you nowhere.
@AManofSorrows You also might want to check out a couple of articles on a study of world education rankings(reading, math, and science). The UK didn't do so well. (btw the US ranked 14th and the UK was 20th in case you choose not to read it).
guardian . co . uk / news / datablog / 2010 / dec / 07 / world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading
guardian . co . uk / education /2010 / dec / 07 / uk-schools-slip-world-rankings
@wraith168 I never said the UK held any superiority in matters of maths (save over the US which let's face it is hardly a surprise given the comments published on youtube from americans). In the OECD survey the UK came 28th in the world; the US 31st. China-Shanghai being the top - no wonder you lost the Korean War, as well as Vietnam...you were too dumb to win.
@wraith168 Assuming you had any real grasp of science (which you clearly don't) how would this equip you to challenge the theology of believers in faith based religions. At best Darwinism is the best theory we have as to the origin of the species but it is hardly conclusive (& I'm quoting from scientific papers to arrive at this) & there is nothing to say that it won't be superseded by new discoveries: & yet you would wipe away whole communities on a best guess? Monstrous!
@wraith168 Nobody in the UK expects or has experienced creationism being taught in GCSE science & if you gave an answer promoting creationism in a science exam you would fail the question. The bizarre phenomenon you describe is peculiar to the US & probably the Bible belt states. Why not just leave them be - it's not as if your record in mathematical excellence equips you to criticize (31st in the world for competence in mathematics).
@wraith168 Again, you are being obtuse. I never said I attributed evolution to atheism. What I have said is that atheists (most notably Dawkins) have sought to make evolution a justification for attacks on all, not some, all religious belief systems; regardless of their levels of extremism or receptiveness to scientific theory. Dawkins has deliberately sought to incite religious hatred (to an extent equivalent to Abu Hamza) by denouncing all believers as ignorant, murdering luddites!
@wraith168 Evolutionists have made atheism a necessary prerequisite for its acceptance as a theory; therefore they have deliberately sought to hinder the scientific aspirations of believers in God - this is the sort of evil behavior atheists claim to oppose; the truth is though that it's ok when atheists do it but not for anyone else.
@wraith168 It has never been my position that the RCC contributed everything; that said, how many welfare states have the scientific community established...errrr...none! Moreover, the structure provided by organized religions allows for larger scale welfare projects to thrive: hence freemasonry is the biggest charitable giver in the world; Islam/Judaism/Mormon make followers give a share of their earnings to help the poor whereas free thinking witchdoctors watch their people starve.
@AManofSorrows Show me what welfare state the RCC set up? Religion doesn't corner the market when it comes to helping others. Actually, it usually comes at a price. The help offered by religious organizations comes with strings. You keep saying I construct my arguments in a way that cuts religion out of everything. I do it in response to your arguments. Everyone of them attributes everything to religion. Without religion we would be no where and would help no one.
@wraith168 So you concede that science has done nothing to bring about a welfare state in contrast to the :In God We Trust western democracies based entirely upon Judeo Christian principles of health insurance for all, relief for families in poverty etc and derived from the RCC alms giving and food distribution of the middle ages (which is why it was the common man that was hostile to the demise of the RCC as opposed to the rich: "All FREE men are created equal"...
@wraith168 The only way to wipe out conflict on the planet is to wipe out man; science does nothing to rebut that fact. At least religion acknowledges man's frailties and tries to get people to sign up to a concerted effort to offset them. There will always be extremists but getting rid of all religions (a) will never work (b) will require a greater level of extremism to attempt than anything the Pope might do.
@wraith168 Again, the structure of your argument has you condemning the believer for the antics of the priest. If a priest abuses a child that does not make all Catholics pedophiles nor does it mean that Catholics support pedophilia. The Vatican has some of the top scientists of our age working for it and contributing to the development of science through theses, shared knowledge and university teaching. Get out of that one Perry!
@AManofSorrows No I blame the church as a whole for the teachings that held back advancements. From the pope down to the everyday believer. It isn't only the priests or those in charge that exerted pressure on those that worked for knowledge that was against religious doctrine, it was the every day believer also. And the every day believer is in some ways worse than those in charge since many just follow what they are told without question. As for the pedophile part,
@AManofSorrows no that doesn't make all catholics pedophiles but the church moving the priests around, not cooperating with authorities, and doing everything they could to hide it makes it looks like it supports it. This isn't true (or one would hope it isn't) but at the very least the RCC doesn't do what it should when it comes to the victimization of children.
@wraith168 You're referring of course to the fabricated accounts of a cover up of pedophiles & ignoring inconvenient facts such as the fact that nobody is guilty by accusation, that the secular authorities would not have prosecuted on the evidence that the Pope was being asked to respond to, that many if not all of these priests were assigned to roles where they would have a limited & supervised exposure to vulnerable persons, whereas they'd be walking the streets after secular trial?
@AManofSorrows Are you friggin kidding me? Assigned to limited roles? That's how they take care of it. Some priest abused kids over decades. There was no "fabricated accounts of a cover up". It was proven. Do some research on the RCC church in Ireland recently and how it came out that the Vatican tried to stop Dublin church leaders from defrocking a pedophile priest and only relented only after he raped a boy in a bathroom.
@AManofSorrows The RCC church left that monster on the street. Secular authorities took him off. After this, a state order investigation was done of the Dublin Archdiocese found that the church shield scores of priest from criminal investigation over several decades and didn't report any crimes to the police until the mid-90s. That was just the latest. The same has bee seen across the world, in the US, Britain, France, Italy,etc. It is systemic so don't give me the holier than thou bs
@wraith168 Your problem is that you generalize to the point of rendering anything you assert crass. The reason for the rise in abuse cases was the devolution of Vatican control to local bishops. Now the Vatican is having to take back control to ensure that in future everyone’s rights are respected, including the rights of accused clergy "it being unacceptable to remedy the injustice of sexual abuse with the injustice of railroading priests who may or may not be guilty.”
@AManofSorrows My example on the priest in Ireland is no generalization. It is a specific example. The Vatican itself tried to block the Dublin church leaders from defrocking the guy. That is directly contrary to what your tried to assert that the Vatican gave up control to local bishops. Seems like it exerted it's control and in the wrong way. The RCC has been all about hide the problems in this respect not fixing it.
@wraith168 You aren't being specific at all; what you are doing is blending several different events with a dollop of press sensationalism to arrive at the conclusion you want to reach: that the entire RCC is a conclave of pedophiles. The Vatican is keen to co-operate with authorities: now anyone with even a limited involvement in the running of the church has to undergo monitoring & criminal records checks.
@AManofSorrows No I never said they were all pedophiles. I am saying the RCC systematically hides the problem. It shuffles around the bad priests so as not to give the church a black eye when it should have come out and said there is a problem and we will full cooperate with authorities to being these people to justice and protect the innocent children.
"The Vatican is keen to co-operate with authorities"
Well of course they are now. They have been beat into submission on that account since for decades they have hidden any problems. Though this isn't entirely true as the case in Ireland points out. Do some reading up on it and see how the Vatican doesn't come off as being to keen on anything other than hiding the issue.
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 days ago
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 3 days ago
@Mogley52 retard
eddieisfiction 4 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 3 days ago
His lack of religious belief undoubtedly produced the routine lack of consideration, even cruelty of his characters towards others. I'm always surprised how many Seinfeld fans haven't noticed the mean streak that runs right through the series.
hfelton 4 days ago
@444damn it's a good question. he should become an atheist.
riseuplight 4 days ago
Why is he still a jew when he finds relgion retarded?
0bdlkrm 4 days ago
@0bdlkrm he's a self hating jew you gentile fool
444damn 4 days ago
I agree
floresebu 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
Larry, comedy genius, nuff said
manuellopez1956 6 days ago
one child of GOD can destroy the work of one thousand evil spirits 2 children of GOD can set ten thousand to flight, and 3 children of JESUS CHRIST is a force the devil can not stand in he has to fall to his knee's BECAUSE HIS CREATOR JESUS CHRIST IS THERE. in us an with us.JESUS kingdom is for ever growing there is no end to it. so you better decide which side you want to be on because GOD made hell for the angels but hell is enlarging itself to receive the wickedness,
fisher99100 1 week ago
@fisher99100 trolololololololololololollololollolollololololololololollolololloloollololollololloloolo
charmander4533 1 week ago
@fisher99100 You sound like one dumb, brainwashed motherfucker.
barkape 5 days ago
@fisher99100
3 CHILDREN OF CHRIST is an orgy if you throw in a priest.
After all, abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.
bersaba 5 days ago
darkness has never won a battle over JESUS THE CHRIST and never will.this is all a proving ground to give all that come through the matrix/ are womb had to put that in for all the alien lover,the womb is called the matrix in the bible,and all that is to be born will make a choice, where way they will follow,those that follow darkness to there place,and those of light to there place,remember this GOD said one child of light come destroy the work of one thousand spirits of darkness,2 ten thousand.
fisher99100 1 week ago
and you all think your darwinism/marxism is foundational 2 old men that let there own children starve to death, give me a break you mean the 2 men in the 1600's the started Communism and Nazism movement that think that the plato theory was best for the world you mean them 2 men dream on people now that a damn fairy tell, that why we are in the hell we our in now in the world.you mean them 2 men that have caused wars to this day, that think only favored races should survive, them 2 men you love!!
fisher99100 1 week ago
@fisher99100 Your post(s) is/are the ramblings of an deranged idiot. Much like the bible.
zivkovicable 6 days ago
@fisher99100 Darwin and Marx HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.....The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 while The Origin of Species was not published until 1859. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with marxism one way or the other.....Evolution is often used as a justification for the free market economy while it has been proven that marxism is simply a secularized version of the Book of Revelation. Ayn Rand, one of the free market's most ardent champions, despised christianity
floresebu 6 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
religion is retarded.
dkthg 1 week ago 2
But not Islam. Has anyone see Pitch Black with Vin Diesel. An interesting film. Islam will be here for a long, long time. That's a promise. It ain't over till Islam sings.
I tell you what, if Jesus, Moses and Abraham were Muslims, I think Christianity and Judaism are wasting their time in perpuating religions that have no authentic foundation. Think. Chritianity named after a man who NEVER claimed it. Judaism after some tribe somewhere in time. Islam =submission. To who? Ask yourself.
lastsaracen 1 week ago
@fisher99100 What a bunch of fairy tales! In the future, Christianity will be considered a myth alongside Greek and Egyptian mythology.
MrKGatl 1 week ago
you have got to be kiddin me man and ape related ! there no way there is 3% differents in the dna structure, that like the distance from here to the sun, ther is no way ape can even be close to a relative to humans, and just because you think they look kind of like you does not make them related to you,and just because we our made up skin bone an nails like a lot of life out that does not mean we came from them, there is a better theoryGOD USED THE SAME MATERIAL'S TO MAKE US AS THE ANIMAL SIMPLE
fisher99100 1 week ago
@fisher99100 Prove it.
wolverine005 1 week ago
@fisher99100 Unless you can prove it you're in the same boat my friend.
xstexuk 1 week ago
@fisher99100
you make as much sense as an ape, so i just proved you the fuck wrong
aceofspades477 1 week ago
@fisher99100
Stop spamming your bullshit. You don't have the slightest understanding of evolution and your site is a joke. Learn punctuation, you ignorant ass.
Parabol0086 1 week ago
Best dude ever.
BushPrintzle 1 week ago
in the next 300 yrs I think I hope its tomorrow but there to much missing yet so you all have plenty of time that if you dont die before you call on christ,because we all are eternal being we live forever well our body die but our soul live on it is changed,like a metamorpha and awaits a being forth by a creator that knows the mechanic of what it takes to restore the soul in a physical body I am getting way t deep for you all go to web site it will take you years to read an understand God bless
fisher99100 1 week ago
GO 2 OUR WEB SITE TO GET YOUR THINKING CHALLENGED IM THERE at godisjesuschrist,com and so is ever other creationist, Im the one they call bam bam cause I hammer stupid religions in the dirt like evolution an false Christianity and other religion that are just bogus I us to be a evolutionist but now Im a christian believer in Jesus christ he is GOD in the flesh and he coming back when all of us have made up our mind which way we want to go i think all that is to be born is coming to an end maybe
fisher99100 1 week ago
come on people you got to be smarter than this, every single thing you believe in is by faith there is only a little bit that is really fact evolution is by faith you got to believe its real there no proof,we never seen a monkey turn into a human our are by that matter 1 million of a human, let see it happen this time.the fossil record is a joke with all the fakes that have been made,let me tell you why you dont want a GOD because the idea of a GOD TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO CHAPS YOUR HIDE
fisher99100 1 week ago
@fisher99100
"we never seen a monkey turn into a human"
That's not evolution. Man and ape share a common ancestor.
leftovers0 1 week ago
godisjesuschrist,com
fisher99100 1 week ago
AManOfSorrows, As a direct parallel to your list of scientists, I could provide a list of prominent fascists and nazis who were Roman Catholic. Would this show that the RCC nurtured fascism?
markdami 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@markdami Georges Lemaître was a RC priest & the first scientist to propose the big bang theory. The Jesuits nurture learning in many fields: in fact it is a condition of entry into the order that applicants are academically competent to contribute to academic development - & before you try an "aha" the competence (nay the excellence) they expect is in non-theological fields; which is why some of the greatest scientists to come out of the Vatican are Jesuit priests.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
AManOfSorrows, I was asking you to provide examples of scientific achievements that were caused by or only possible because of the RCC. You've merely given a list of scientists who happen to be Catholic. Do you see the difference?
I can think of many examples of the RCC retarding scientific progress. I don't *believe* it's ever done the opposite and promoted the search for scientific truth.
markdami 2 weeks ago
@markdami No! What I see is that you cannot substantiate your argument with hard (dare I say it, scientific?) evidence. Show me the many examples of the RCC actually retarding (as opposed to questioning) scientific progress: you can't because there aren't any.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
lol love it
bar360sheffield 2 weeks ago
AManOfSorrows. Can you give some examples of how the Roman Catholic Church has contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge?
markdami 2 weeks ago
@markdami RCC & RCC sympathetic scientists: John Philoponus; Bede, the Venerable; Leo the Mathematician; Hunayn ibn Ishaq; Pope Sylvester II; Hermann of Reichenau; Hugh of Saint Victor; Pope John XXI ; Roger Bacon; Thomas Bradwardine; Nicholas of Cusa; Nicolaus Copernicus; Michael Stifel; William Turner; Giordano Bruno; Johannes Kepler; Laurentius Gothus; René Descartes; Robert Boyle; Isaac Newton; Augustin Louis Cauchy; Gregor Mendel; Asa Gray; Louis Pasteur; Armand David; and...
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@markdami ...Pierre Duhem; E. T. Whittaker; Georges Lemaître (a RC priest & the first to propose the big bang theory); Michael Polanyi; Stanley Jaki; Antonino Zichichi; Michał Heller; Francis Collins....to name but a few...
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
ha
nomercyevolution 2 weeks ago
I don't believe that a "god" exists.....the priest fucking my ass begs to differ.
dkthg 2 weeks ago
saaa goood
pulfdiddy 2 weeks ago
Haha awesome. Another star in the "Cool Book" for Larry:D
TheOpinionater 3 weeks ago
AManOfSorrows, Religion has nothing whatever to do with science except perhaps as an example of it's antithesis.
The great monotheistic religions start from a base of ignorance and progress absolutely nowhere. Poverty, utter poverty. Anybody who chooses to ignore the majesty and grandeur of science, choosing instead the wretched leavings of ignorant savages, is a pitiable fool.
markdami 3 weeks ago
@markdami This savagely ignorant appraisal of the facts of history only confirms the hypocrisy of scientific apologists who deny religion on supposedly scientific principles but then deny the relevance of facts when these contradict scientific revisionism: in other words, you're not only ignorant but pig-headedly so. Separating science and religion can only lead to a dystopic utopia where life is cheap and freedom no longer exists.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
How come Larry David tirelessly mocks Christianity, but never Judaism? Gee, could it be because he's a Jew himself? So it's obviously not about religion, but the white man's religion that he resents even though the white man has given Jews safe harbor in this country. This recalcitrant Hebrew nee...
shojahan14 3 weeks ago
larry david is overrated and not very intelligent. I can see why his marriages never seem to work.
Sage80 3 weeks ago
He should never refer to himself as a jew ever again.
Sage80 3 weeks ago
The only reason Ricky Gervais is an atheist is because he can't pull off pretending to be a Jew to get on in Hollywood, he's too ugly to be a Scientologist, he's the wrong color to get help from Eddie Murphy or the Wayans brothers, but he can as a born again atheist brown nose Larry David (who seems to be the only Hollywood big hitter prepared to back him). And if anyone looks like a Mong its you Ricky - people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at Subo!
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
Religion was made up and now believed in by people that are scared of death.
Bouche1985 3 weeks ago
He is so right, it is quite crazy
KeaBesnard 4 weeks ago
And by the way...what does Larry David celebrate at Christmas? Hannukah! That most atheistic of holidays. The reason we Jews pan other faiths is because we are contemptuous of other faiths. We Jews don't call you gentiles - our Yiddish word for you is Shitza (yes, it means that) and the hebrew word means: beasts that walk upright. If we Jews were so enlightened explain Palestine and explain why every white role in Hollywood is played by a Jew - the rest are played by blacks, spanish etc
AManofSorrows 1 month ago
Religion was not created it was adopted and has evolved into spirituality. How did the Viking religion dominate mankind? How did Taoism dominate mankind? or Shinto? or Wicca? or even Satanism? For all its faults Roman Catholicism has given us literacy, universities to explore learning, courts to dispense justice and laws to protect the vulnerable. Islam has given us science, numeracy, architecture and commerce. Where would we be with atheism? Still in f***ing caves you morons!
AManofSorrows 1 month ago
@AManofSorrows Religion is the first attempt made by the human race to explain the world around us. However, like must such things, it is quite flawed. We have better ways of looking at reality now. It is time to move on. Clinging to its past glories gets us nowhere.
seleroan 3 weeks ago
@seleroan Everything begotten of man is inherently flawed and that includes science. I agree that religion ought to evolve. But, you take mankind on a very dangerous path when you seek to separate science from what people believe or when you try to prove the superiority of either. Comparing apples & oranges is ludicrous. I believe that each has something to learn from the other and that an open understanding of the merits of each will foster real advances in knowledge.
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows How is science flawed? It's based on fact & proof.
herbie747 3 weeks ago
@herbie747 Everything created artificially is inherently flawed. Scientists are disproving each others' theories and suppositions every single day. You would replace religion because you believe it is based on theory and opinion. But science is entirely based on theory and opinion because there is no science of interpretation of data. All interpretation is subjective and therefore subject to all of the flaws and idiosynchrasies of the person making the interpretation/s.
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows
"you take mankind on a very dangerous path when you seek to separate science from what people believe "
And what dangerous path would that be? Enlightenment?
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog You cannot have enlightenment without belief. Every enlightened age has existed in the context of a belief system - the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Renaissance, the Founding Fathers of America, the Victorian Era, the fall of Nazism, the fall of Communism in Poland (Solidarnosk) and so on and so on. If atheism and science is your God move to North Korea and see what life in a warmongering godless state is really like.
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows
"You cannot have enlightenment without belief"
Quite right but not belief in superstitious nonsense.
"If atheism and science is your God move to North Korea"
Oh dear! You theists just love the old chestnuts don't you.
Atheism isn't what runs North Korea just a twisted dogma much the same as religion. Atheism isn't a requirement for despotism religion often is.
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog The core of most belief systems is conceptual, not literal. Literal interpretation (& literal dissection of the conceptual) is the product of a poor education, ignorance and limited exposure to knowledge (the internet generation). Jesus was not a Christian, he was a reformist Jew who spoke of the folly of superstition and dogma. Pauline Christianity is to blame for the current expression of Jesus as a God King. Not all atheists are despots but all despots are atheists.
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows
"The core of most belief systems is conceptual, not literal"
Tell that to Christian and Islamic fundamentalists.
"all despots are atheists."
Ali Kharmenei, Saudi family, Ali Abdullah Saleh , Hamid Karzai, Asif Zardari, Abdul Halim, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz.
Just a few modern day theocratic despots and personally I would add the Pope.
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog
Pseudo-Semitic Zionist European Jews run the military campaign to wipe Palestine off of the map and from history. Many of these Jews are Atheist. All are anti-Christ.
Christians and Muslims regard Jesus a Messiah.
True Semitic Arabian Jews, Muslims and Christians shared Jerusalem in peace before the invasion of the pseudo-Semitic Zionist anti-Christs who bombed a Jerusalem hotel in 1946 murdering dozens of civilians.
The Zionists are largely descendants of Bolsheviks.
onefodderunit 3 weeks ago
@onefodderunit
"Christians and Muslims regard Jesus a Messiah."
I regard him as a myth.
Not sure what point you're making with the rest of your rant and not sure I care to be honest.
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog
The Babylonian Talmud doesn't regard Jesus a myth.
onefodderunit 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog then you're stupid and have no historical perspective.
Sage80 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sage80
"then you're stupid and have no historical perspective."
Instead of a juvenile attack on my cognotive abilities why not try to prove me wrong about Jesus.
Direct me to the evidence of his existence.
Good luck with that!
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog And what is the crime rate in these countries? What are the chances of your granny getting mugged in these countries?
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AManofSorrows
"And what is the crime rate in these countries? "
What on Earth has that to do with anything?
Just because the people of those countries are supressed by a despotic theist doesn't provide evidence for the existence of their delusion.
If that's your idea of an ideal society I genuinely feel sorry for you.
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog If you are going to take extremists as being universally representative of the whole and be valid, then my retort to that is that all scientists are inherently evil without no regard for the sanctity of life such as Mengele (Euthanasia); Paracelsus (creating slaves humanoids); Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer (nuclear Armageddon); Alfred Nobel (Military Grade Explosives); Trofim Lysenko; Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Euthanasia); Members of the Tuskegee Study;
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog and to continue: Dr. Sigmund Rascher; Shirō Ishii and so on and so on and so on...
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows
You asked me to name theist despots. I complied.
If you feel the need to rant on with a list of names to give yourself an air of intellectualism, carry on, fill your boots, your pretentious waffling proves nothing.
It still doesn't change the fact that I've repeated so often to you, it's all bullshit.
One more time for it to sink in. IT'S ALL BULLSHIT.
Do I make myself clear?
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@Pigdowndog Your ignorance is clear to me as is the fact that you've lost your argument. Bye bye birdy bye bye!
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AManofSorrows
"Your ignorance is clear to me as is the fact that you've lost your argument. Bye bye birdy bye bye!"
In your fevered mind you think that's the truth but childish insults do not change the truth.
Better luck next time old bean.
Pigdowndog 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Okay, North Korea has a god. His name is Kim Il-Sung.
seleroan 2 weeks ago
@seleroan A god or THE God...there is a difference.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Uhm... the god they believe in? He's a man they revere as a god. Sort of like Jesus. You say "THE God" in such a profound and yet meaningless way. Which god are you referring to? There are quite a few of them that people have and do believe in at this very moment.
seleroan 2 weeks ago
@seleroan As I expected you have disappeared up the asshole of your own crass argument. Your words are the reason you are now straitjacketed into hissing & spitting like a tart. YOU identified Kim Il-Sung as a god - he probably is in the urban generic sense of that word; what he isn't however is a deity belonging to any developed or reasoned belief system. So even in North Korea he is unlikely to be seen as THE God - profound eh?
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Not really. Because you haven't defined "developed or reasoned belief system" as anything other than your own. I don't identify Kim Il-Sung as a god. He is worshiped by the people of North Korea in much the same way as you worship your own. That you see their state-mandated religion as unreasoned and undeveloped but cannot see that your own parallels it in many areas is typical. "Their religion is wrong and mine is right." Why? Faith. You have no argument.
seleroan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seleroan You are talking out of your ass - by your logic Barney the Dinosaur is a God because little kids are addicted to watching his shows. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist & taking the concept of belief to ad ridiculum extremes does not change that. Your science fails you & until it stops failing you should keep your gobs shut about what is delusional & what isn't.
AManofSorrows 1 week ago
@AManofSorrows There is no science to religion. It is all faith and belief. It does us no good to take ancient belief systems and say we are still going to get some great knowledge out of them. What knowledge would that be exactly?
wraith168 3 weeks ago
@wraith168 Again, you are being obtuse. Religion and science are simply different approaches to making sense of the unknown. At least religion acknowledges that it might have got it wrong or that some further revelation may be necessary to full knowledge; whereas science assumes it is always right (even when it is proven not to be). Without religion man would not have built Stonehenge/the Pyramids/the Acropolis/the Coloseum/the Library of Alexandria/the Jerusalem Temple etc etc etc
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows No they are not different approaches. Religion is based on ancient superstitions and ignorance of the world by ancient people.
"At least religion acknowledges that it might have got it wrong..."
Sorry but you are taking what science does not religion. Religion has to be beat over the head with the true until it final submits to it when they have something wrong and even then it fights when wrong.
wraith168 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Like many people of faith, you are taking a fault of religion and trying to pin it on science. Science is just the opposite of what you say. Other than the Jerusalem Temple, you can't claim the other structures would not have been build without religion. For instance, the Acropolis was a for defense (it is usually translated to Citadel). Maybe you meant Parthenon which was a temple.
wraith168 3 weeks ago
@wraith168 Being a smart ass doesn't make you smart. Athens was built to worship Athene & its citizens all worshiped Athene. Indeed all ancient societies were motivated by their religious beliefs to create architecture worthy of their gods; as a by product of those investigations other technologies were discovered and developed. By contrast, societies fixated only on the science of survival have barely evolved from cave man days: African tribesmen; Australian aborigines etc etc.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows You assign any advancement in knowledge, architecture, science, etc solely to religion. It is not always the case and as I have said, religion in many case works against knowledge and advancements once things start conflicting with religious doctrine.It has been a help AND hindrance to man. In modern times it seems to be more of a hindrance than help now. Established science is attacked and faith based replacements are touted.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Different religions are in constant conflict with each other making for dangerous situations throughout the world. Hell even differing ideas with the same basic religion is dangerous. People of the same basic faith fight among themselves (different sects of islam or christianity).
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 And scientists hold hands all day skipping around trees and singing Lennon's "Imagine" do they? Scientists are bitchier than a room full of supermodels on PMT day. Man doesn't need a reason to fight, merely an opportunity. There is a quote from the Bible that fits here: take the beam out of your own eye before you take issue with the speck in someone else's.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Yea but scientists general go suicide bombing the labs of those that disagree with them. They don't kill each other over beliefs.
When they don't agree, they go to there own labs and try to prove the other wrong. If they can't prove it wrong, it just makes the theory stronger and if they can, it gets rid of a theory that wasn't correct. In the process they make our knowledge and understanding better.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Scientists aren't meritocrats - how old are you, five? Scientists assert theories they cannot prove which become accepted until someone comes up with another theory which somehow becomes more popular and so on and so on until eventually science everywhere faces the grim reality that nobody was right & in fact all the theories were wrong ab initio. Like with Aids/Cancer/Global Warming and so on. And where did the terrorists get the technology to blow things up? Jesus?
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 To follow the logic of your argument would be to espouse the notion that scientific knowledge appeared out of thin air (a big bang?). This is specious reasoning at best. The truth is: religion has been the locomotive of science, motivated as Einstein conceded by a desire to touch the face of God. However science, as it always does, has become an errant child wanting to wander away from its parents and get into mischief - hence why we now have vivisection, euthanasia etc etc
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 If science has in recent years experienced a back lash from non-representative elements within religious groups it is because it has allowed itself to become associated with atheist dogma - a dogma which has all the hallmarks of the religious dogmas it claims to want to save us from. If science stayed out of religion this conflict need not exist but atheists/Dawkins have made lucrative careers out of kicking over this beehive solely to sell poorly written literature.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows More ignorance on your part. I've told you what atheism is and there is no dogma attached. The backlash is from ancient bronze age superstitious religions trying to stay relevant and keep their followers blind to what is true around them.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 To assert that God is a Delusion without ever proving the case that God does not exist sounds like a whole lotta dogma to me boy. And Catholicism started in the Bronze Age did it? Where did you learn your history from: Tom Cruise?
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Again, you are either stupid or obtuse. I have not assigned all advancements in knowledge to religion! What I have said is that science & advancements in learning originate from & have evolved from religious thought. That science may have left its parent behind in several areas is beyond contention; but this has been acknowledged already by the Vatican & other religious belief systems where efforts are being made to catch up (& in many areas they have superseded).
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows No you are trying to say all science had its genesis in religion. I have shown that to be untrue. So either your a fucking moron or just choose to ignore what someone says to you. I vote for both. I really hate name calling but when you consistently do it... In any case, being that you have done that multiple times, I think we are finished. You have cease to be entertaining for me also. Someone else can continue to point out the fallacies your your arguments.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 All science did have its genesis in religion; that is already proven beyond all reasonable doubt. A scientist doesn't have to believe in God to be a good scientist nor does a belief in God make a person a bad scientist. If atheists don't like living in greenhouses with smashed windows they shouldn't throw stones. Thank you for sharing your ignorance so unselfishly & freely, because it isn't worth anything. Muppet!
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Superstition is not the same as religion at all. Consider sportsmen, say at the Superball: often they are extremely superstitious but they are, more often than not, unaffiliated to any religious belief. And again, you cannot take extremists as representative of the whole - take Islam: what actual percentage of world muslims are terrorists? Your approach is little more advanced than the good wives of Salem.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Belief is personal and subjective; as such it is inherently receptive to intelligent argument and persuasion. Some fringe elements within organized religion are actually afraid of believers and instead want adherents: people who accept regardless of their beliefs. I agree that these are dangerous elements and that they should be targeted specifically - but not by throwing the baby away with the bathwater.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows "At least religion acknowledges that it might have got it wrong..." Sorry what?! HERETIC!!! Break out the torches!!! Seriously, though, are you trolling the non-believers now? I name thee troll-bait!
seleroan 2 weeks ago
@seleroan And I name thee False Continuum Muppet!
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows What exactly are you extolling as the "merits" of religion? There are merits to a lot of things. I can learn some of these from reading about Hercules or Perseus, for example. Most of them of any value have to do with the nature of heroism, how to spin a good yarn, and some minor points about human nature. Of little value would be claims about gods sitting on a mountain worrying at humanity. The parallels to modern religions are evident.
seleroan 2 weeks ago
@seleroan You are but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. Your ramblings are as a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Okay, so I make a point in trying to interpret your meaningless drivel, and all you can do is call me an idiot? Well, I tell you what. Prove that God exists, and then we'll talk. Until then, I have nothing more to say to you.
seleroan 2 weeks ago
@seleroan Prove that he does not - the maxim of every common law system is "he who asserts, must prove". It is atheists (such as Dawkins, another idiot) who have asserted that God does not exist - prove it then. You can't. If you were accused of being a rapist by the police, it would not be for you to prove that you were not; it would be for the police to prove that you were & if they had not evidence then you would be entitled to walk free. Atheists can't prove their case: period.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Wow. Just wow. Atheists are not making a positive claim. You say that God exists, I don't believe you. So, reasonably enough, I ask you to prove that he does. You say prove that he doesn't. This is a logic fallacy. That I would need to explain this to you shows pretty clearly that you don't understand the rules of logic that you are espousing. I am not surprised. Please, consider reading up on the subject before you make more of a fool of yourself.
seleroan 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seleroan Science purports to be logically superior because its logic is said to comply with certain laws of science. So if science bases itself on laws then it should be but a small matter to comply with the law. The law provides that "he who asserts must prove". Dawkins asserted that belief in God was a delusion because God does not exist but then cannot prove that God does not exist; ergo, his argument fails as it does not comply with the law of proof. Period!
AManofSorrows 1 week ago
@AManofSorrows Actually "science, numeracy, architecture and commerce" have roots further back than islam. Though islam did help it along a great deal but at the point where the science started to dispute the religion, islam then covered its eyes and ears and stopped looking for the truth of science. As for the catholic church it did as much to stifle learning as it did to help. And also laws and courts and such go back much further than christianity.
wraith168 3 weeks ago
@wraith168 Science was once (and for several thousand years) a search for a way to get closer to the Divine by deepening understanding of the nature of things. Where science has gone wrong is to assume that it is a God to be worshiped in place of the Gods of old.
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Actually religions are basically made by ancient people to try to explain what they didn't understand (which was a lot). Things like where humans come from, how the world started, what happens after we die, etc. As humans gained more understanding of things and science advances, the need for such ancient superstition explanations are unnecessary. Unfortunately, religion in general is so ingrained in humans it is difficult for many to shake free of it's hold.
wraith168 3 weeks ago
@wraith168 Science and religion were once synonymous, each feeding the others' search for the meaning of things. Religion was the locomotive of science for thousands of years. The only obstacle religion posed to science during that time was in terms of ethical study. Scientists however have always thirsted to study without regard to the implications: which is why we have nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, the exploitation of animals for experimentation etc etc
AManofSorrows 3 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows No not synonymous, once religion (specifically the roman catholic church) welded great control over nearly everything. Even kings and queens were weary of crossing the church. The obstacle was not in terms of ethical study. Coming out and saying something like the Earth wasn't the center of the universe and it revolved around the sun didn't have much to do with ethics.
wraith168 3 weeks ago
@wraith168 The Roman Catholic Church evolved from the Roman Empire & was therefore an extension of the same philosophies, ethics & logic. Further applying Godwins Law to justify an irrational refusal to appreciate the contribution of the RCC to the development of knowledge does nothing to bolster your position. That medieval kings didn't like being denounced for fratricide is probably true but we wouldn't have population supporting economies or a welfare state without the RCC.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Unless you are confessing to me that you were anally raped by a priest I am at a loss why you are so vehemently anti-Christian. I should have a lot more respect for your arguments were you to acknowledge the role of Christianity (& indeed of Islam) in the intellectual development of the western world instead of trotting out crass tautologies about the bad things that have been done in the name of belief as if science were immune from the same iniquity.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows I don't say that the RCC didn't contribute anything. I am saying they didn't contribute EVERYTHING as it seems you are asserting.
"a welfare state without the RCC"
Why not? You don't think any countries would come up with systems to support their citizens?
I am not anti-christians as much as I am anti-religion. It just so happens I run into many more christians than any other religion. I don't say it didn't contribute to science and such. cont...
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows I do say the christian religions did not give us all of the "the intellectual developments of the western world". Our modern knowledge was build on top of ideas and work from a multitude of sources. As was any knowledge that come from christianity and islam early on. What you don't want to recognize is that christianity and islam hurt advancements in knowledge also when that knowledge conflicted with religious doctrine. This was especially true with islam.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 The evils associated with a polarization of science and religion are not dispelled by attacking all believers and denying their place in the future of mankind. It is this aspect of belief genocide that is strengthening those elements within organized religion that seek to either profit from or otherwise exploit such fears.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows We have people in the 21st century trying to hold on to things like creationism or ID which has no basis in science and reject something like evolution in the face a massive amounts of evidence for it. This isn't trying to advance knowledge, it is trying to stifle it for the sake of faith. What was done in the past really is irrelevant. It's the actions of believers now that is of more importance to me.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 If the evolutionists' agenda was merely to educate (instead of being a trojan horse for atheism) then they would be focusing on areas of agreement not areas of disagreement. The Bible clearly prescribes an order of arrival of events which corroborates aspects of evolutionary theory. The area of disagreement is therefore much narrower: the only difference being that believers believe God to be the trigger whereas scientists believe it was some sort of celestial fart.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows You attribute evolution to atheism. There is no correlation. You don't have to be an atheist to believe evolution is true and you don't have to believe in evolution to be an atheist. There are many atheists that don't go with evolution. There are many theists that believe in evolution. It is about education. There is nothing "clearly" in the bible that prescribes any such thing. You can interpret the bible to fit or not fit evolution. Depends on who you talk to.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows It is not much narrower. Again, it depends on who you talk to. There are those that take the bible literal. There are those that take it as just a guide. The order of arrive of events is bs. In the bible, everything came to be whole and fully formed. That in no way goes with evolution in which everything came to be with small changes over time. The bible does not belong in science classes. If you want to teach it in schools, then do it in literature classes.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Again, you are being obtuse. The vast majority of jews, muslims & christians see the Bible as a conceptual appreciation of the origin of everything. Christians are quite prepared to allow science to fill in the blanks. Georges Lemaître, a RC priest was the first scientist to propose the Big Bang Theory for God's sake.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows
"The bizarre phenomenon you describe is peculiar to the US" This is not entirely true. I have talked with people from all over the world that believe and try to push the agenda of creationism. This includes quite a few from your country. I am more concerned with those in the US though as they have a greater impact for me personally. I can't leave them be as long as they true to push to teach creationism in science class or as they push their religion on others.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows
"it's not as if your record in mathematical excellence equips you to criticize"
As you like to point out, you are generalizing here. And by this generalization, you seem to be trying to say I'm an idiot. Whatever the overall competence is in mathematics in the US, that doesn't include me. Personal attacks get you nowhere.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows You also might want to check out a couple of articles on a study of world education rankings(reading, math, and science). The UK didn't do so well. (btw the US ranked 14th and the UK was 20th in case you choose not to read it).
guardian . co . uk / news / datablog / 2010 / dec / 07 / world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading
guardian . co . uk / education /2010 / dec / 07 / uk-schools-slip-world-rankings
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 I never said the UK held any superiority in matters of maths (save over the US which let's face it is hardly a surprise given the comments published on youtube from americans). In the OECD survey the UK came 28th in the world; the US 31st. China-Shanghai being the top - no wonder you lost the Korean War, as well as Vietnam...you were too dumb to win.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168
Do you find Larry David's urine on an image of Jesus' face worthy of an episode plot for his kosher idiot box program?
onefodderunit 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Assuming you had any real grasp of science (which you clearly don't) how would this equip you to challenge the theology of believers in faith based religions. At best Darwinism is the best theory we have as to the origin of the species but it is hardly conclusive (& I'm quoting from scientific papers to arrive at this) & there is nothing to say that it won't be superseded by new discoveries: & yet you would wipe away whole communities on a best guess? Monstrous!
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Nobody in the UK expects or has experienced creationism being taught in GCSE science & if you gave an answer promoting creationism in a science exam you would fail the question. The bizarre phenomenon you describe is peculiar to the US & probably the Bible belt states. Why not just leave them be - it's not as if your record in mathematical excellence equips you to criticize (31st in the world for competence in mathematics).
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Again, you are being obtuse. I never said I attributed evolution to atheism. What I have said is that atheists (most notably Dawkins) have sought to make evolution a justification for attacks on all, not some, all religious belief systems; regardless of their levels of extremism or receptiveness to scientific theory. Dawkins has deliberately sought to incite religious hatred (to an extent equivalent to Abu Hamza) by denouncing all believers as ignorant, murdering luddites!
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Evolutionists have made atheism a necessary prerequisite for its acceptance as a theory; therefore they have deliberately sought to hinder the scientific aspirations of believers in God - this is the sort of evil behavior atheists claim to oppose; the truth is though that it's ok when atheists do it but not for anyone else.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 It has never been my position that the RCC contributed everything; that said, how many welfare states have the scientific community established...errrr...none! Moreover, the structure provided by organized religions allows for larger scale welfare projects to thrive: hence freemasonry is the biggest charitable giver in the world; Islam/Judaism/Mormon make followers give a share of their earnings to help the poor whereas free thinking witchdoctors watch their people starve.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Show me what welfare state the RCC set up? Religion doesn't corner the market when it comes to helping others. Actually, it usually comes at a price. The help offered by religious organizations comes with strings. You keep saying I construct my arguments in a way that cuts religion out of everything. I do it in response to your arguments. Everyone of them attributes everything to religion. Without religion we would be no where and would help no one.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 So you concede that science has done nothing to bring about a welfare state in contrast to the :In God We Trust western democracies based entirely upon Judeo Christian principles of health insurance for all, relief for families in poverty etc and derived from the RCC alms giving and food distribution of the middle ages (which is why it was the common man that was hostile to the demise of the RCC as opposed to the rich: "All FREE men are created equal"...
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 The only way to wipe out conflict on the planet is to wipe out man; science does nothing to rebut that fact. At least religion acknowledges man's frailties and tries to get people to sign up to a concerted effort to offset them. There will always be extremists but getting rid of all religions (a) will never work (b) will require a greater level of extremism to attempt than anything the Pope might do.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Again, the structure of your argument has you condemning the believer for the antics of the priest. If a priest abuses a child that does not make all Catholics pedophiles nor does it mean that Catholics support pedophilia. The Vatican has some of the top scientists of our age working for it and contributing to the development of science through theses, shared knowledge and university teaching. Get out of that one Perry!
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows No I blame the church as a whole for the teachings that held back advancements. From the pope down to the everyday believer. It isn't only the priests or those in charge that exerted pressure on those that worked for knowledge that was against religious doctrine, it was the every day believer also. And the every day believer is in some ways worse than those in charge since many just follow what they are told without question. As for the pedophile part,
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows no that doesn't make all catholics pedophiles but the church moving the priests around, not cooperating with authorities, and doing everything they could to hide it makes it looks like it supports it. This isn't true (or one would hope it isn't) but at the very least the RCC doesn't do what it should when it comes to the victimization of children.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 You're referring of course to the fabricated accounts of a cover up of pedophiles & ignoring inconvenient facts such as the fact that nobody is guilty by accusation, that the secular authorities would not have prosecuted on the evidence that the Pope was being asked to respond to, that many if not all of these priests were assigned to roles where they would have a limited & supervised exposure to vulnerable persons, whereas they'd be walking the streets after secular trial?
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows Are you friggin kidding me? Assigned to limited roles? That's how they take care of it. Some priest abused kids over decades. There was no "fabricated accounts of a cover up". It was proven. Do some research on the RCC church in Ireland recently and how it came out that the Vatican tried to stop Dublin church leaders from defrocking a pedophile priest and only relented only after he raped a boy in a bathroom.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows The RCC church left that monster on the street. Secular authorities took him off. After this, a state order investigation was done of the Dublin Archdiocese found that the church shield scores of priest from criminal investigation over several decades and didn't report any crimes to the police until the mid-90s. That was just the latest. The same has bee seen across the world, in the US, Britain, France, Italy,etc. It is systemic so don't give me the holier than thou bs
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 Your problem is that you generalize to the point of rendering anything you assert crass. The reason for the rise in abuse cases was the devolution of Vatican control to local bishops. Now the Vatican is having to take back control to ensure that in future everyone’s rights are respected, including the rights of accused clergy "it being unacceptable to remedy the injustice of sexual abuse with the injustice of railroading priests who may or may not be guilty.”
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows My example on the priest in Ireland is no generalization. It is a specific example. The Vatican itself tried to block the Dublin church leaders from defrocking the guy. That is directly contrary to what your tried to assert that the Vatican gave up control to local bishops. Seems like it exerted it's control and in the wrong way. The RCC has been all about hide the problems in this respect not fixing it.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@wraith168 You aren't being specific at all; what you are doing is blending several different events with a dollop of press sensationalism to arrive at the conclusion you want to reach: that the entire RCC is a conclave of pedophiles. The Vatican is keen to co-operate with authorities: now anyone with even a limited involvement in the running of the church has to undergo monitoring & criminal records checks.
AManofSorrows 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows No I never said they were all pedophiles. I am saying the RCC systematically hides the problem. It shuffles around the bad priests so as not to give the church a black eye when it should have come out and said there is a problem and we will full cooperate with authorities to being these people to justice and protect the innocent children.
wraith168 2 weeks ago
@AManofSorrows
"The Vatican is keen to co-operate with authorities"
Well of course they are now. They have been beat into submission on that account since for decades they have hidden any problems. Though this isn't entirely true as the case in Ireland points out. Do some reading up on it and see how the Vatican doesn't come off as being to keen on anything other than hiding the issue.
wraith168