mehh..

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by CashBanks

my question for silly putty or anyone else who doesnt believe in God who'd like to answer

What if YOU'RE wrong? What if there is a God and He's PISSED you've been disrespecting him?
Because if religious people are wrong when they die no biggie if you're wrong when you die kinda gunna suck huh?

I should force myself to live a lie because of the possibility that I'll die and be tortured for eternity by a supposed loving and merciful god? Do you see what's wrong here?

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by cartune

I've come to the conclusion that people are just wired different

 militant atheists and crazy religious people are one in the same. they aren't balanced individuals at all

This is probably why most of the great minds in history were agnostic because its foolish to claim to know the absolute truth.

Its easy as hell to not believe in religion I dont understand why so many of yall take pride in not believing in something and bash people who do

I've heard old people tell me family stories that I know couldnt be true the "stable human being " in me didnt feel the need to bring up the "facts"

I thought most of the greatest minds in history were atheist.
Thats what putty meme said 

 

[frankmatthews]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


The word EXISTENCE according to your logic has no place in the English language and hold no meaning---think about what you're saying

The cure for AIDS exists, time travel exists, so what doesn't exist according to your logic Frank? Scientists work to make things a part of our reality, but without discovery these things do not exist!!! The cure for AIDS may be discovered someday, but as of now it doesn't exist because people are still dying from AIDS

Basically what you're suggesting is that we completely scrap the word "existence" from the English language and say everything exists----these things are a possibility, time travel is a possibility, aliens are a possibility, but they do not "exist" in our reality without evidence Frank

I can agree that they are all merely possibilities.  I don't "believe" anything exists until it's proven to me, I do "believe" in the concept of possibilities.
I said as much in my reply to sillyputty.

Let me pose this question.  When we make a scientific discovery, of a new species perhaps, would we say that it didn't exist prior to our discovery?
Is the act of being brought into existence dependent upon human observation? I wouldn't like to scrap the word existence but I would like to
challenge the way people think about it.  If I say something is possible does that mean I "believe" it, does that mean I think it exists?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by OnTheNephs

Yo in no way am I coming at you, but your idea of quoting things out of context and making it big font is played out.
I said that religion is a continuum and continues to be updated/perfected hence why all religions that passed were from the creator and the final religion being Islam. Islam it self says it is the final religion. Now this is dumb to quote the Quran as my source, but realistically speaking has another religion came into fruition since? Scientology... ... Apart from a cult? None. So im left to understand that this idea it was the final religion was right. Simple proof for me right there. its been 1500 years and there has been no religion that has come in the scope of christianty or Islam.  

The idea of the text book thing was exactly proving my point. I said that it NEEDS to be updated because of different concepts, hence why religion kept on going through changes. You take this as the whole idea of religion is wrong. Now do you not see your issue here?

Also to make it clear for you guys, if you read the old testament thoroughly you will see that no where does Jesus profess being the son of God. More correlattion to the idea that Humans are the ones who stray. This is by no means a cop out. It is true humans are not perfect. 

When Christianity first started it was on the scope of Mormonism today who is to say years from now Mormonism won't be as big as Christianity? Mormonism is a VERY new religion and it's also one of the fastest growing religions in the world!!!


So your proof of Islam being the final religion is that Islam says its the final religion?

What makes scientology a cult and Christianity not one, aside from the fact that scientology is a novel religion?

Jesus was in the old testament?

Expect me to respect his bullcrap religion yet he considers others cults, hypocrites

 

[onthenephs]

And this concept of believing either religion or science is made up by atheists. Honestly i have never met a religious person that denies science. My dad is senior chemical engineer and has extensive achievements and accomplishments in the science community, in North America and the East.

OnTheNephs wrote:

---

Yo in no way am I coming at you, but your idea of quoting things out of context and making it big font is played out.
I said that religion is a continuum and continues to be updated/perfected hence why all religions that passed were from the creator and the final religion being Islam. Islam it self says it is the final religion. Now this is dumb to quote the Quran as my source, but realistically speaking has another religion came into fruition since? Scientology... ... Apart from a cult? None. So im left to understand that this idea it was the final religion was right. Simple proof for me right there. its been 1500 years and there has been no religion that has come in the scope of christianty or Islam.  

The idea of the text book thing was exactly proving my point. I said that it NEEDS to be updated because of different concepts, hence why religion kept on going through changes. You take this as the whole idea of religion is wrong. Now do you not see your issue here?

Also to make it clear for you guys, if you read the old testament thoroughly you will see that no where does Jesus profess being the son of God. More correlattion to the idea that Humans are the ones who stray. This is by no means a cop out. It is true humans are not perfect. 

When Christianity first started it was on the scope of Mormonism today who is to say years from now Mormonism won't be as big as Christianity? Mormonism is a VERY new religion and it's also one of the fastest growing religions in the world!!!


So your proof of Islam being the final religion is that Islam says its the final religion?

What makes scientology a cult and Christianity not one, aside from the fact that scientology is a novel religion?

Jesus was in the old testament?

Expect me to respect his bullcrap religion yet he considers others cults, hypocrites 

YO HONESTLY ANTON, IF THIS IS WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD FROM MY WORDS THEN I AM SORRY MAN.  I clearly said the proof was not from the Quran and it would be dumb for me to source that as my proof. I used real life to judge whether it was true or not. You failed to read that part. 

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by OnTheNephs

And this concept of believing either religion or science is made up by atheists. Honestly i have never met a religious person that denies science. My dad is senior chemical engineer and has extensive achievements and accomplishments in the science community, in North America and the East.

No, they just deny science when its convenient

That's why I mock religious people for saying they don't need evidence cause they are always the first ones to ask for evidence when it's eg another religion making a claim

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Originally Posted by cartune

I've come to the conclusion that people are just wired different

 militant atheists and crazy religious people are one in the same. they aren't balanced individuals at all

This is probably why most of the great minds in history were agnostic because its foolish to claim to know the absolute truth.

Its easy as hell to not believe in religion I dont understand why so many of yall take pride in not believing in something and bash people who do

I've heard old people tell me family stories that I know couldnt be true the "stable human being " in me didnt feel the need to bring up the "facts"

I thought most of the greatest minds in history were atheist.
Thats what putty meme said 

They were agnostic atheists. You ppl need to understand the difference and realize it is not an either or situation. Being agnostic and atheist answer two different questions.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by OnTheNephs

And this concept of believing either religion or science is made up by atheists. Honestly i have never met a religious person that denies science. My dad is senior chemical engineer and has extensive achievements and accomplishments in the science community, in North America and the East.

In my experience, it's mostly young earth creationists that accept the Bible as being literally true, thus placing the universe at an age of 6,000-10,000 years old. Because of this, many of the people with these beliefs will conveniently deny the science behind evolution, the Big Bang, and radiometric dating. There are plenty of brilliant scientists that do not blindly reject science because of religious beliefs. 

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Originally Posted by cartune

I've come to the conclusion that people are just wired different

 militant atheists and crazy religious people are one in the same. they aren't balanced individuals at all

This is probably why most of the great minds in history were agnostic because its foolish to claim to know the absolute truth.

Its easy as hell to not believe in religion I dont understand why so many of yall take pride in not believing in something and bash people who do

I've heard old people tell me family stories that I know couldnt be true the "stable human being " in me didnt feel the need to bring up the "facts"

I thought most of the greatest minds in history were atheist.
Thats what putty meme said 

They were agnostic atheists. You ppl need to understand the difference and realize it is not an either or situation. Being agnostic and atheist answer two different questions.

Chill with the "you ppl" you comment.
Its hard to distinguish when people call them selves agnostic atheist.

 

[Jordan8]

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

cartune wrote:

---

I've come to the conclusion that people are just wired different

 militant atheists and crazy religious people are one in the same. they aren't balanced individuals at all

This is probably why most of the great minds in history were agnostic because its foolish to claim to know the absolute truth.

Its easy as hell to not believe in religion I dont understand why so many of yall take pride in not believing in something and bash people who do

I've heard old people tell me family stories that I know couldnt be true the "stable human being " in me didnt feel the need to bring up the "facts"

I thought most of the greatest minds in history were atheist.
Thats what putty meme said 

Dude copies and pastes everything from athiest forums tho

If I had enough time in a day I would find a christian scientist or apologist forum or whatever and posts scrolls too
  

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

Banned.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by cartune

I've come to the conclusion that people are just wired different

 militant atheists and crazy religious people are one in the same. they aren't balanced individuals at all

Wrong.
I'm not out here in real life bashing people over the head. I'm not stupid. 

I have to remember that people would KILL me for the stuff i'm thinking in many countries. I'm not trying to go out over someone thinking they know what happens to me after they kill me. 

This is probably why most of the great minds in history were agnostic because its foolish to claim to know the absolute truth.

Wrong again.
I don't claim to know the ultimate truth.

I just say that until its proven, then one can not take a stance on things.

But again, you're wrong to assert that its just Agnostic.

Agnosticism and Atheism answers two different things.

Its easy as hell to not believe in religion I dont understand why so many of yall take pride in not believing in something and bash people who do

I don't have a problem with people believing.
Just don't tell lies and wrap them in your "faith"

Don't sit here and make stuff up about accepted scientific principle.

At the end of the day, believe what you want, but don't mislead people when we KNOW that you're objectively wrong about things that CAN be proven. 

We got dudes in here trying to say dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible. 

I've heard old people tell me family stories that I know couldnt be true the "stable human being " in me didnt feel the need to bring up the "facts"

Like I said...this is the internet.

This should be our place to debate. 

Physical intimidation is a big reason why many non-believers stay silent. 

On the flip-side, I don't want to kill people who do believe or even harm them. I want to protect the autonomy of every person...but don't propagate your beliefs as accepted truths when they are NOT. 

---

---

---

Originally Posted by OnTheNephs

Yo in no way am I coming at you, but your idea of quoting things out of context and making it big font is played out.

your opinion.

I said that religion is a continuum and continues to be updated/perfected hence why all religions that passed were from the creator and the final religion being Islam.

Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world.
Then you have to account for all the variations of the major religions that came after the initial form of islam? Sunni? Shiite? etc.

Islam it self says it is the final religion.

Scientology?

Now this is dumb to quote the Quran as my source, but realistically speaking has another religion came into fruition since? Scientology... ... Apart from a cult? None.
Whats the distinction between a cult and a religion?

So im left to understand that this idea it was the final religion was right.

...Baha'i came around in the 19th Century in Persia.
Tens of millions of followers.

Your point fails.

Simple proof for me right there.

Unsubstantial proof is what it is.

its been 1500 years and there has been no religion that has come in the scope of christianty or Islam.

The number of people that do something doesn't make it more valid.
By that accord, christianity is actually more correct because there are MORE of them than muslims.   

The idea of the text book thing was exactly proving my point. I said that it NEEDS to be updated because of different concepts, hence why religion kept on going through changes.

If god makes an infallible book but you guys choose what to follow, is it still an infallible book? Are you disobeying god? I'm pretty sure god meant NOT to do something...so why do you do it?

You take this as the whole idea of religion is wrong. Now do you not see your issue here?

No.

Religion that gets updated isn't a religion. Its just a religion that realizes it has to conform to social pressures otherwise it won't have any followers.

Why does the catholic church eventually accept every premise that challenges the bible? Condoms? Gay rights? The Earth revolving around the sun? 

Also to make it clear for you guys, if you read the old testament thoroughly you will see that no where does Jesus profess being the son of God. More correlattion to the idea that Humans are the ones who stray. This is by no means a cop out. It is true humans are not perfect.

 
Never said humans were perfect. Abandon this idea of "perfection"...it doesn't exist. 

You are, who you are. 

BTW, Jesus wasn't in the old testament. 

Originally Posted by cartune

shoefreakbaby wrote:

---

cartune wrote:

---

I've come to the conclusion that people are just wired different 

 militant atheists and crazy religious people are one in the same. they aren't balanced individuals at all 

This is probably why most of the great minds in history were agnostic because its foolish to claim to know the absolute truth.

Its easy as hell to not believe in religion I dont understand why so many of yall take pride in not believing in something and bash people who do

I've heard old people tell me family stories that I know couldnt be true the "stable human being " in me didnt feel the need to bring up the "facts"

I thought most of the greatest minds in history were atheist.
Thats what putty meme said 

Dude copies and pastes everything from athiest forums tho

If I had enough time in a day I would find a christian scientist or apologist forum or whatever and posts scrolls too
  
Does that change the validity of the comment?
I bet you get all your news from CNN or TheGrio 

...does that mean your knowledge is invalid?

When will you learn to focus on the content itself and the arguments it makes and not where it came from. 

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

I can agree that they are all merely possibilities.  I don't "believe" anything exists until it's proven to me, I do "believe" in the concept of possibilities. 
I said as much in my reply to sillyputty.

Let me pose this question.  When we make a scientific discovery, of a new species perhaps, would we say that it didn't exist prior to our discovery?




NO.

You were unaware of it. Neither "Yes" nor "No"

You cant adopt a stance on an issue before you were aware of an issue. 

Why do you keep wanting to say things that you DO NOT KNOW?

Is the act of being brought into existence dependent upon human observation?

By what other means of observation do you possess?
I concede that there are many things that I do know know or are aware of...but I do not make judgements on the claims in either direction. 

I do not know.

I keep telling you this.

I can't say yes.  I can't say no.

I wouldn't like to scrap the word existence but I would like to 
challenge the way people think about it.  If I say something is possible does that mean I "believe" it, does that mean I think it exists?

You keep saying everything is "possible" but you never test whether or not it is...and even when shown to be not possible, as you've defined it, you still cling to the idea.
You're being dishonest.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

I thought most of the greatest minds in history were atheist.
Thats what putty meme said 

They were agnostic atheists. You ppl need to understand the difference and realize it is not an either or situation. Being agnostic and atheist answer two different questions.

Chill with the "you ppl" you comment.
Its hard to distinguish when people call them selves agnostic atheist.

"You ppl" in this instance are the ppl who continually display the inability to distinguish between agnostic and atheist. If you know and understand what each word means it is not hard to distinguish AT ALL.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

R.I.P Ruffio

 

[frankmatthews]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

My man, what are you talking about?  Please show me where I have made "wild assertations".  What exactly have I "subscribed" to
 or "made my mind up about"?  I'm "making crap up and believing it BEFORE it is proven"?  Link?
What claims have I made, what conclusions have I come to?  You must have me confused with another poster.

If no one "believed" there were undiscovered species in the rainforest that could benefit us, would they be over there
searching and studying?  They can "believe" in the possibility of such species without "subscribing" to their existence.
I "believe" in the concept of possibilities, nothing more, nothing less.

I WOULD RATHER CURSE AND SCREAM THE TRUTH THAN TO QUIETLY TELL YOU A LIE.
Because it's one or the other right?

  "he who speaks the loudest says the least"

 I didn't "retract" anything. I've been saying this all along. What the living hell have you been reading this entire time?

Is it technically wrong for me to assert that god does NOT exist? Yes. So I apologize.

This is a retraction, no?  You asserted something you realized you shouldn't have and apologized.

Have you also ever considered that learning the origin of Cytochrome C isn't a top priority? We know how it works. We used to not even know it existed. You want to know where it comes from. There are only so many minds that can work on this stuff. If it interests you, go after it.

Put forth the claim that god exists. Test the claim. Look at the results. If the claim is supported, accept the hypothesis as a theory. Re-test. Reassess. Add to existing base of knowledge of previous result.

I don't believe there is a god...and I don't have the interest to find out. I do not know if there is a god or not. I can't prove that there ISNT one. So go test the hypothesis yourself!
You are dancing around the concept I am trying to explain to you.  Have you considered that subjective choices as a human is what determines what has priority and what doesn't?  Do we really want to go into how research facilities are funded and how priorities are established?

If everyone took the stance that "I don't believe there is a "whatever"...and I don't have the interest to find out", just how the hell are any meaningful hypothesis supposed to be put forth?  Who is going to put forth vast amounts of time and  effort to hypothesize, test, re-test, publish and so forth if they don't believe or don't have an interest SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN PROVEN OR IS KNOWN TO EXIST? 

"I don't believe in undiscovered life living in currently unreachable depths of the sea because they haven't been proven to exist.  I have no interest in things that don't exist.
Therefore, someone else should go prove it"  This is what I take issue with.

If everyone's response is "go test it yourself", no one is going to go test it, furthermore those that may have a passing interest may be dissuaded from even attempting a hypothesis based on the prevailing attitude of their peers.  You call peoples ideas ignorant, yell and scream as you put it.  If you were the head of a major research facility, I wonder how many scientists would even attempt to develop a hypothesis to prove god, and what kind of resources would be allocated to testing?  So while it is well within your rights to think the way you do and perfectly logical, we can't all think like you.

Additionally, you keep telling me to prove this or prove that, figure it out and the like.  My man, I am not a scientist.  I chose a different career path, I have a job to do and bills to pay, nor do I have the resources to prove a hypothesis if I did find the time to create a valid one.

Everyone can't be their own scientist.  Everyone is not capable, intellectually or financially, of answering the various questions they have according to the scientific method.  This is why I find your explicit reliance flawed and why I see it as fallible.  I have to take some guy, in some book's word for it.  Yes all these things in science book are proven by scientists, according to scientists.  Same as a preacher wants me to take the bible as proven fact.  I have no way of independently verifying anything in either book other than the simplest concepts. The bible because it is fiction, in a historical sense.  The science book because I don't have the capability to do so. 

All these "beliefs" you keep projecting on me are merely hypotheses I have no means of testing.   Am I not allowed to formulate hypotheses and discuss them just because I don't have the means to test them?  You wanna talk about scientist priorities.  I can't make scientists priorities line up with my priorities.  The extent of my scientific knowledge is dependent on THEIR priorities.  In the meantime my ideas are apparently ignorant and foolish because no one else found the time and money to prove them.

For me to "believe" scientifically proven facts I have to trust the scientists honesty and integrity, which I generally don't.  You say if someone lies it will be found out, fair enough, eventually it might.  Only what is proven exists, until it is disproven, then it no longer exists.  Or did it ever?  And what of withheld information?  How do you know government scientist haven't proven aliens exist, or your spider man god for that matter?  Compare CPU efficiency over the past 50 years with gasoline engine efficiency in the same period.  Is it scientific fact that the gasoline engines mpg capability peaked long ago?  Where do the priorities lay in this field of research?  

Science, in theory, is not flawed.  In practice it becomes flawed through mans interaction with it.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW...JUST SAY SO.



I didn't think it was necessary to state that I don't know the source of creation.  It is evident that no one knows that.  I have no more of a problem
stating that I don't know than you do.

Listen to yourself:



COULD; MIGHT, MAYBE, POSSIBLY, ETC.

GUESSING SOMETHING OR WISHING FOR SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT MORE TRUE.

STOP ASSERTING YOUR GUESSES AS OBJECTIVE FACTS.

You are taking it all out of context man.  I wasn't indicating that I believe any of those possible definitions of god, I was simply informing you that you are not speaking to
someone who defines god based on the bible, or any other book for that matter.  When I use the word "god" I am using it generically.  I don't find the dictionary definition to
encompass what I feel are the vast possibilities of what god is, if he exists.  They are not my hypotheses, they were just examples demonstrating the scope of my use of the word, however technically incorrect it might have been.  

How you figured I was asserting a guess as an objective fact is beyond comprehension.

Merely having thoughts of something does not substantiate the belief in those things.

How is this your response to me stating that something is NOT my belief?  Having thoughts facilitates the development of meaningful hypotheses, if you haven't
picked up on that yet.

Furthermore you said that "keep saying it"...and I DONT. I didn't even say it in THIS thread. I only clarified because you kept moaning about it.
You state your belief that god doesn't exist or proclaim things that you admit you don't know to be fake or nonexistent far more often than you state that you don't know, if you are really unsure where the confusion comes from.

You're an agnostic-theist.



End of story.

Lol, ok man, if you say so.  If not believing in god but believing in the possibility of a god makes me an agnostic-theist than so be it.

I tell you I don't find the existence of god to be absolute or conclusive.
I tell you I define "belief" as absolute or conclusive
You agree
You tell me I believe in god. 

You don't make any sense because you keep making crap up then saying you "don't really believe it" but then keep doing the same damn thing.

Like your spider-man god, or flying spaghetti man?  They are instructional tools my friend, try to keep up.

You say you want to keep an open mind but you still keep the door open.



Dude. ARGH!

 . Just put your foot down. If the claims aren't supported...DISCARD THE CLAIM.






Keep the door open? Is this a typo?  Makes zero sense.

Discard the claim?  Or say we don't know?  Which is it? 

I realize I skipped over a lot of your quotes but I feel I addressed the underlying concept that relates to much of what you had to say.  If you feel I didn't or that I'm trying to dodge questions, I'll gladly go back and address whatever you feel necessary.

 

[cap1229]

Who snitched on BSmooth?

fess up.

 

[|A-Man|]

Oh they banned him too? Yes. Thought he'd just get suspended for those comments. Fam needs to be banned. Stay coming with the most wild ignorant posts. Son forever been talking out of line in these threads.

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

I tell you I define "belief" as absolute or conclusive

How are you making your own definitions for what a belief is?

 

[mycoldyourdone]

what did rufio say?

why do yall hate on puttys paragraphs and colors? you take the time to write all your points and him dissecting/acknowledging each piece is the most respectable thing to do in an argument. you saying you all like to write in random words that are there for decoration? thorough.

cut and paste? so what? 85% of his +%!* is +%!* ive seen on r/atheism but do you really think he doesnt think for himself just cause he finds a picture that relates to his views? $#+$ if he made it or not. where would we be if we werent allowed to learn from eachother?

in b4 mancrush

 

[cap1229]

Originally Posted by Mycoldyourdone

what did rufio say?

why do yall hate on puttys paragraphs and colors? you take the time to write all your points and him dissecting/acknowledging each piece is the most respectable thing to do in an argument. you saying you all like to write in random words that are there for decoration? thorough.

cut and paste? so what? 85% of his +%!* is +%!* ive seen on r/atheism but do you really think he doesnt think for himself just cause he finds a picture that relates to his views? $#+$ if he made it or not. where would we be if we werent allowed to learn from eachother?

in b4 mancrush

Yeah we know you can't wait to read his 4 page letters.

 

[mycoldyourdone]

lulz i dont read everything. ive seen him repeat a lot of things since there are a lot of believers that come and go. they dont read, they just drop in with their piece. he has crazy patience and answer ethic? lol right saying? any other normal non-believer would have gave up after a 5 post exchange but this dude is a machine. for all i know he could be semi autistic (no diss) or just plain likes to hear himself speak but does it make whatever he is saying wrong if its repetative, long and "played out"?

 

[vatech733]

Is there a such thing as nothing? The debate that cannot be answered at this time. Was there an Intelligent Designer or was the Universe a natural occurrence?

If you believe the in the designer the question posed is, who created the designer? Did the designer create himself? Was the designer ALWAYS there?

If the universe was ALWAYS there then there is no such thing as something coming from nothing. The reason these debates are endless is because you have two trains of thought:

1. You believe the designer was always there and therefore put the universe we live into motion.
2. Energy was always there, therefore nothing did not in fact come from something. It was something that came from something.

Since we cannot prove either one these debates are endless and there is an equal chance that each can be right. But this is my take on it.

Ie.)

If me and another person are on trial for murdering someone and there are no witnesses, just me and the other suspect were found at the scene. All the evidence of the murder can point to me committing the murder. Even though all the evidence is pointed at me, there is still a CHANCE that the other suspect actually committed the murder.

If we all go through life not being certain about anything and are unable to support claims through evidence, then this world would be very confusing and we as human beings would not be able to make any assertions about ANYTHING. My point being, even though people like sillyputty will criticize people for believing in I.D. there is still in fact a chance that the I.D. could very well exist and all the evidence could mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I see no problem with believing in the ID theory, but the biggest problem is most people who believe in it are people that take the next unnecessary step in saying the ID is a loving ID. Saying the ID is "Loving" and controlling is completely too strong of an assumption.

The hardest thing that we as human beings do is DEFINE things, when in actuality what do we even know? But the only thing we can be sure about is that we do not KNOW the reason for anything beyond us, only that we apply our human logic to things that may or may not abide to human logic.

The question that bothers me most is "What is nothing? Is there such a thing?"

 

[jet5foo1]

You can't define 'nothing' as empty space. It still has 3 dimensions.

Plus for the amount of info we think we know about everything, we as humans haven't even learned everything about our own planet.
Now consider the galaxy, the universe, other dimensions (cosmologists claim there are more than a couple others)...
We don't know anything compared to what we could if we as a race stuck around forever. The technology of things could advance so far beyond our comprehension that an I.D. could be perfectly reasonable. There could be perfectly logical explanations for things that we are so ignorant/naive that we can only comprehend them as 'magic' at this point. 

Take someone from the 16th century and place them into 2012 and everyone around them is a magician.

 

[sighfur]

Originally Posted by Retro23J

Originally Posted by Sighfur

On a spiritual tip, what do you guys think about the Flower of Life, and the theories behind that?

info?

Check out this video, its pretty wild.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

people say its the "shape" or "image" that makes up everything. Break everything down to its smallest form, and it would look like this.

 

[superblytrife]

Thumbs up, OP. Kudos for the idea of making this thread. This was needed years ago.

 

[mke49er]

Originally Posted by Sighfur

Originally Posted by Retro23J

Originally Posted by Sighfur

On a spiritual tip, what do you guys think about the Flower of Life, and the theories behind that?

info?

Check out this video, its pretty wild.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

people say its the "shape" or "image" that makes up everything. Break everything down to its smallest form, and it would look like this.

real talk... thanks bro. For some reason I think that info really has something to it, i don't know what but i just had a feeling while watching that this info is for real. I consider myself an agnostic atheist by the way.