Ragol.co.uk Forums  

Go Back   Ragol.co.uk Forums > Banter > The Void

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-12-2007, 05:45 PM
pso king's Avatar
pso king pso king is offline
Knight
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the nine hells
Age: 26
Posts: 491
Send a message via AIM to pso king
okay well My point about claws and stuff like that is that they would be useful so why did we get rid of some of those things? also it doesn't matter how painstaking it is for a scientist to make a theory it can still be false.

also clearly jesus had to have existed because some scientists are trying to find out when Jesus was born and they have narrowed it down to early april. how can they find out the birthdate about somebody who never existed?

darwinism is not an utter fact otherwise there would be no christians except radicalists. you can not Utterly prove that darwinism is true and I cannot utterly PROVE God exists unless I kill you. i'm sure you don't feel like getting killed and I don't feel like killing you. I'm not threatening you i'm telling you the way that I could prove if God exists if you want utterly conclusive proof. also if you can quote things from darwinist websites and books I can quote things from christian websites and books.

one more thing I would like to point out. if there were no God of some sort then people wouldn't have believed in any sort of God for all of this time. it doesn't matter the religion. yours is one of the few that says there is no divine being. if there was no divine being I think your religion would have existed a lot sooner.

last thing. this debate will never end. neither of us is going to concede to the other side. therefore I will try my best to end this. your side has proof backing it up. mine also does. no matter which has more will matter because neither of us is going to concede. I'd rather believe that God does exist and I will eventually go to heaven. you'd rather believe that there is no such thing as God for some reason I can't imagine although clearly you have one because you do believe in your faith. we are the only ones who really care much about this debate anymore and even i''m getting bored of it. continue this debate on one of your stupid darwinist websites. if i'm right we're the only ones on this website who care about this debate anymore. I don't care if you believe in your religion. I'd just rather you wouldn't insult people because they believe something different. also just a suggestion. be as good a person as you can just in case I am right. now I am going to stop posting in this thread for a while. if you honestly have to keep posting then I guess i have to also. however there is honestly no point. each of us is right in our own minds. that is probably not going to change no matter how much each side wants it to.


also one more thing to everybody who said that we should get rid of religion altogether. that is basically impossible. no matter how hard you try people are going to believe that there is something after. the only real way to get rid of religion is to get rid of humans. also technically it is impossible to get rid of religion becuase once again. the definition of religion is "your opinions and beliefs of a divine being or beings." therefore unless you could make it so nobody understiid the term divine being there is no way to get rid of religion unless you extinguish the human race.
__________________
RIP nomercy.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-12-2007, 06:10 PM
nomercy's Avatar
IL-nomercy nomercy is offline
Bust a cap in the crowd!
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Age: 30
Posts: 3,143
Send a message via MSN to nomercy
Indeed, scientists' theorems can be false, but they put much more work into discovering them. I never claimed the man Jesus was false, simply the deity. Jesus himself was true, he was indeed crucified by the Romans, according to the books I've read on the subject. However everything after that, that is to say the resurrection, the floods, the parting of the Red Sea, none of it has proof enough to stand up in the history books. There simply is not commendable evidence that such things as those happened.

However, there are theorems that are quite a bit more truthful-seeming, to my ears. One example, the resurrection of Jesus. There are those who believe he was not dead when he was entombed. This would be ample proof to say that he did not in fact die there. However, there is the factor of the death certificate drawn up by the Roman emperor at that time, which states Jesus died.

Your assumption that my quotes on Darwinism are taken from Darwinist websites... I've done in-depth research on the subject myself, so I do believe I know what I'm talking about. Your aforementioned statement of "why don't you arrange a place to meet so i can kill you" is tantamount to a death threat and is, now, punishable by law. However sinceyou would have no hope of harming me, I won't take it too seriously. Yet.

If there were no God...blah blah blah. This particular sector is getting very old, very fast. I have already stated my opinion on the matter, as well as the fact there are multiple religions, which puts a sword to the throat of the one true god theory. We have claims all over the world, from different religions, of ascention and the like, your claims are nothing different.

You state that you are bored of this. As I have said earlier, either get on with it, or suck it in and go elsewhere. My 'stupid Darwinist websites' as you so idiotically name them have a large part more credentials than your holy light of god BS. Suck it in emo child. I have said, and will say again, I have no religious faith. I believe in credible evidence, I believe in truth by experimentation. God won't put food on my table, science will. The factor is that everything contains scientific worth. Without science you wouldn't even be here talking about it, you would be dead because cooking wouldn't work. Cooking depends on heating molecules of food to certain temperatures to make it ingestible.

Put bluntly, science has more uses than religion has ever had, and ever will. Religion does not feed my children, it does not educate them, it does not help them.

And your severe lack of respect for scientists irks me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-12-2007, 08:20 PM
pso king's Avatar
pso king pso king is offline
Knight
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the nine hells
Age: 26
Posts: 491
Send a message via AIM to pso king
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomercy
Indeed, scientists' theorems can be false, but they put much more work into discovering them. I never claimed the man Jesus was false, simply the deity. Jesus himself was true, he was indeed crucified by the Romans, according to the books I've read on the subject. However everything after that, that is to say the resurrection, the floods, the parting of the Red Sea, none of it has proof enough to stand up in the history books. There simply is not commendable evidence that such things as those happened.

However, there are theorems that are quite a bit more truthful-seeming, to my ears. One example, the resurrection of Jesus. There are those who believe he was not dead when he was entombed. This would be ample proof to say that he did not in fact die there. However, there is the factor of the death certificate drawn up by the Roman emperor at that time, which states Jesus died.

Your assumption that my quotes on Darwinism are taken from Darwinist websites... I've done in-depth research on the subject myself, so I do believe I know what I'm talking about. Your aforementioned statement of "why don't you arrange a place to meet so i can kill you" is tantamount to a death threat and is, now, punishable by law. However sinceyou would have no hope of harming me, I won't take it too seriously. Yet.




well actuallly jesus would have had to have died. mainly becuase roman executioners were very efficient. if anyone came down from the cross alive they themselves would be killed. next comes the empty tomb. since Jesus was killed he clearly had a tomb. well if the tomb as indeed empty then the disciples would have had to steal the body unless he rose form the dead. well Jesus was proclaiming that he was the son of God. people would have made it so that his disciples could not steal the body. now they had no oppurtunity and no motivation. then the stone becomes rolled away and the body is gone. in order for this to happen the guards which had swords and spears would need to be dead and depending on how deep the stone was into the cave you might actually have to be inside the cave to roll the stone away. possibly the wrong tomb? no chance. otherwise history would have recorded that. next if any other document besides what the bible said is true then the disciples gave their testaments with their lives. now while it is true that people will die for something that they believe to be true not many will die for something that they KNOW to be false. if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead then wouldn't one of them have said why should I die for a lie about a dead man? you have to admit this is pretty good proof for the resurection. trust me tehre is no chance jesus could have lived through the crucifixion. the empty tomb is a problem for all scientists who want to disprove christianity. if you can prove jesus never rose from the dead then you can disprove christianity.


I wasn't threatening you when I wrote the death thing. I was merely saying that would be the easiest way to prove my point or your point. I don't have a problem with you and I definitely don't want to kill you. I was only saying that that would be the easiest way top prove either of our points.

also about humans being random mutations. we are very very complex creatures. random and complex are two entirely different contradictory things. random is basically mere chance. if something is complicated then it probably didn't happen.

one thing about darwinism that does have a gaping hole in it is how did the first whatever it was whether it was a cell or molecule or whatever. how did it get there? even if it was there what would the chances be of it existing for very long? it is barely feasible for the thing to exist. then it is goign to take forever for the earth to be made. then there are always the chances of it being destroyed somehow. next the sun and the earth have to be about exactly where thy are now to even support life. then there obviously has to be oxygen in order for there to be an ozone layer to blok out UV rays. Even if darwinism has evidene in it's favor it is implausible for a niverse like ours to exist without guidance of some sort. you have to admit it puts a hole in the darwinism theory. one nmore thing darwinism can't explain is how some things happen. there a medical impossibilities that I don't think darwinism can explain. then there are physical impossibilities that happen with people. unless there is a God none of these things make sense. for examplle soem people report being tugged by something as soon as they are about to die that obviously made it so they didn't die. some people report things going through other things. so either that si proof for the existence of God or proof of the existence of ghosts that can possess anything and make it do what they want. and they are very nice to humans. I think the God hypothesis is a much more reasonable conclusion.

one piece of evidence for the worldwide flood may be how many different religions have tales of a worldwide flood. if a lot of different ones have this tale this is most likely a historical truth. unless somehow all the different people from each religion got together and said. let's put a tale about a worldwide flood into all of our religions. while not great proof it is something to consider.

the parting of the red sea is something I cannot prove happened. however If an almighty god does exist then it wouldn't be very hard to part a sea.seeing as it would be part of his creation it would not be hard to manipulate.

one thing that disproves polytheism is ockham's razor. another thing that does is every religion with multiple gods describes them as being much like humans. irritable, spiteful things like that. next if the god of fire and god of water got into a fight then one of them would be dead eventually and one of those things would be gone permanently. pretty much disproves polytheism. therefore there is really only atheism and monotheism that are left. I know the polytheism thing has nothing to do with your argument I'm just saying one reason that monotheism makes more sense than some other faiths.

also i'm not really bored I was just tired when I wrote that. when you're tired you feel bored. or at least I do.

I also never said you don't know what you are talking about. if you didn't then you would have conceded long ago.
__________________
RIP nomercy.

Last edited by pso king; 08-12-2007 at 08:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-12-2007, 08:30 PM
Jimbo1990's Avatar
SC-Jimbo1990 Jimbo1990 is offline
Shadow Council
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lost Lake Public House
Age: 29
Posts: 1,389
Send a message via MSN to Jimbo1990
ha ha ha you two should have your own show! this thread should be the nomercy vs pso king debate! oh its just too much sometimes it really is
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-12-2007, 12:17 AM
nomercy's Avatar
IL-nomercy nomercy is offline
Bust a cap in the crowd!
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Age: 30
Posts: 3,143
Send a message via MSN to nomercy
"IDers think that evolution is false. They dress up their idiocy in voluminous bull****ery, but the basic argument is identical to that of creationists: they believe evolution theory does not work. They just don't bother to name the invisible man in the sky who created the biosystem through unnamed, untestable, and indescribable mechanisms."
-- Michael Wong

Please man... Learn biology, anatomy, physics, and chemistry before you start shouting off about evolution. Your absolute butchery of each and every one of these topics both offends and astounds me, that the educatory system has failed in such a magnificent way. Before you try and bluff your way through this with your failed definitions of the words "random" and "complex", let me tutor you on the subject.

Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279? It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No. These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.

Random does not mean 'meaningless.' The scientific meaning of random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.

Intelligent human life came about around 400,000 years ago. These 'pre-historic' men were much the same as we, except without the knowledge of science and handywork we have nowadays. Now as you can probably guess, they weren't exactly the same kind of people we are. They were, for all intents and purposes, werewolves. Pack animals who hunted and killed in the exact same way, but for walking on two legs rather than the four determined as quadrupeds. The result of the harsh environment they lived in caused them to change. To evolve and adapt to changing surroundings in order to survive.

This was not caused by any holy deity, it was a will to live. It was change or die, much as it is now. Whilst you continue to argue your case for the holy messiah, reiterating statements again and again which have no depth nor evidence to them, you dig a deeper hole in which I bury you. I have provided, again and again hard evidence for the theory of evolution, which can be backed up by many prominent scientists. I fail to see where your manufactured faith derives itself from, as your arguments reek of the same weakness I put up with whenever religious fanatics attempt to prove their case. You say the exact same things, but with worse grammatical ability.

The truth of the matter is this: if you really believed in the moral truths of the causes you champion, you would not need the church. If these ideals are truly reasonable, ethical human values, then even we heretics would uphold them, and the voice of the church would not need to be heard in order for them to become law.

Yes, it can be truly said that the only weight the church can add is the weight of 'god said so.' No, I tell you that the church is not the top of the moral ladder, because the church has never had the interests of mankind at heart. They do not even have the interests of god at heart. They have the interests of a few men clinging to outdated ideals and power, men who would rather 'stick to their guns' than say 'Hey, it's okay if you use birth control.'

I contend that if you believe the church needs any say in championing it's morals, then you do not truly believe in those causes--you only follow them because 'god said so.' For if you had other reasons to promote them, you would not need the church--and that is why the American Constitution specifies separation; so that the reasons for a law are genuine, and not influenced by the only contribution the church can make--that some phantom entity among the clouds wants it to be so.

Religions are not moral authorities. They are not the wise old institutions trying to instill sense into the masses. They are the kings of conquest and murder, the princes of hate and intolerance. They are the champions of ignorance, and the royal family of war.

"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate.
-- F.M. Knowles
__________________

Last edited by nomercy; 11-12-2007 at 12:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 15-12-2007, 09:56 AM
TheMaster375's Avatar
TheMaster375 TheMaster375 is offline
Adept Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philippines
Posts: 291
...... Reading makes my brain hurt....

Calm down, nomercy. He's simply stating his beliefs. It's nothing that serious.

Although, after reading through the thread a couple of times, there are some things I do and do not agree with, both from you and pso king. Like when you said that pso king thinks his religion is superior to others. I disagree with that. You see, based on his beliefs as a Christian, he's led to believe that God is the Creator of this world. And based on your... scientific speculation, you're led to believe that science explains almost everything, if not everything itself. So, in the end, none of us are really wrong, because they're all just opinions and beliefs based on science and religion. And that's exactly why science and religion don't go together. Because in the end, both sides of a debate are either offended by the other, or disgusted.

Well, anyways, just wanted to state my opinion. Sorry if I interupted.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 15-12-2007, 12:17 PM
nomercy's Avatar
IL-nomercy nomercy is offline
Bust a cap in the crowd!
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Age: 30
Posts: 3,143
Send a message via MSN to nomercy
The point of believing one religion above another means that the believer feels that religion is superior to the rest. And as the bible states, "thou shalt have no God above me" or something along those lines. This seems to me, to mean that whoever wrote the bible acknowledges the fact that there are other religions with other deities, and names them fake. The bible also states that Jews are to be stoned for being heretic. A heretic is someone who doesn't believe.

When it comes down to it, yes, it is all on belief. But some people, such as pso king, has been trying to assert his views on other matters, such as science, and him naming scientists stupid idiots for "trying to play god".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 15-12-2007, 01:47 PM
SangeYasha's Avatar
SangeYasha SangeYasha is offline
Adept Hunter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brazil.
Posts: 242
Send a message via MSN to SangeYasha
Sorry for interrupting and everything else, but I think you guys should let him believe in anything he wants, even though he was the one who came here to discuss this. I think it's obvious that neither side will give up on its arguments. As was said earlier in the topic, religion can blind people, so there's no point in discussing if he doesn't want to believe in something else. This is bad for the initial purpose of the topic, unless Anti-Hacker and Rena agree on continuing this discussion. The world would be at peace if everyone followed a simple philosophy: "Live and let live". I believe that world peace is utopic, but in utopic thoughts, I think this philosophy would apply well to make it achievable (spelling?).

And besides, he is a good person. I mean, if he was saying to people for killing muslims and burning every non-christian I could see a motive for discussing all this. Then again, this is just my opinion, I do not intend to (try) stop this, and I don't want to argue with anyone here. I just decided to drop by and say my opinion on this discussion.

I'm atheist, by the way.
__________________
rip

Last edited by SangeYasha; 15-12-2007 at 01:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 15-12-2007, 05:29 PM
nomercy's Avatar
IL-nomercy nomercy is offline
Bust a cap in the crowd!
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
Age: 30
Posts: 3,143
Send a message via MSN to nomercy
A utopia is certainly something which would be extremely useful. Unfortunately there are two major problems in having it. Religion, and Government. Governments thrive from damage to countries and the like, as it lets them puff up and be the 'big man', lending a helping hand, or sometimes an iron fist. Religion is the same.

Religion can quite often fall into acts of a criminal nature; as I placed a few pages back, a link which to be reeked of sheer prejudice to homosexuals, effectively calling them a disease. I'm not sure, but I think that is certainly a hate crime. Or would be, if a non-religious person/website said it.

Also just to nitpick a little (lol) the bible states nothing about the Muslim faith, only Jews, if I rememer correctly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 16-12-2007, 06:46 AM
SangeYasha's Avatar
SangeYasha SangeYasha is offline
Adept Hunter
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Brazil.
Posts: 242
Send a message via MSN to SangeYasha
Icon10

Well, it would be difficult for the Bible state anything about the Muslims, since the Islam just originated in the 7th century. But I was refering to the actual Pope Ratzinger, who said that the Islam is an evil religion, and had to officially apologize later. There's a clear prejudice against the Muslims in the western world nowadays, because most think of them as terrorists. (This is nothing new, I am just clarifying my previous post, don't take it as I am trying to teach you anything. )
__________________
rip
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.