Free Allegiance Forums

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Aug 7 2012, 12:13 AM) And so they make things up.


You mean like saying there is a god?


Hey, you're starting to understand science! I completely agree with this.

Do you know that there is a god? You do not know. You are Agnostic. You believe. You are a Theist. Therefore, you are an Agnostic Theist.

I never said I did know. I've always said I don't know. I agree with them statements.

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Aug 6 2012, 10:57 PM) The real question is why would a supposedly rational person argue with someone who prefers @#(! found in a book written by an unknown author and attributed to some supernatural being, over scientific theories which are for all practical purposes proven?

There are either circumstances probably beyond the influence of a $#@!ing forum thread at work that's clouding his judgement, or he is a moron. Either way it's futile.

The rationality behind it is that I attempting to educate a member of my species, Homosapien (although I think some of us have evolved further). If I am successful, perhaps it will strengthen us.

Plus, it's just entertaining.

Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Aug 6 2012, 11:11 PM) What do you call it when no one can prove a particular something either way, but everyone still fights over it?

You cannot disprove something, you can only prove it.

Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Aug 6 2012, 11:14 PM) I never said I did know. I've always said I don't know. I agree with them statements.

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Aug 7 2012, 12:18 AM) You cannot disprove something, you can only prove it.

Exactly.

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Aug 6 2012, 11:18 PM) The rationality behind it is that I attempting to educate a member of my species, Homosapien (although I think some of us have evolved further). If I am successful, perhaps it will strengthen us.

Problem is your chance of being successful is pretty much nil in these situations.

QUOTE Plus, it's just entertaining.[/quote]

Alien51 wrote:QUOTE (Alien51 @ Aug 6 2012, 11:07 PM) Practical purposes...?

It's a war of ideology.

I don't have time to waste on you but just in case this may get through your skull:

The Theory of Evolution is in the same class the Theory of Gravity. There is no $#@!ing "ideology", it has been shown to hold true over and over and over. The reason it's not called the Law of Evolution is there is not a defined formula showing exactly HOW it works, not because it's unknown WHETHER it works.

Spunk old chap, you're talking to someone who believes that all sedimentary rocks were laid down in one single event in spite of this being clearly impossible at even a cursory examination. Evolution, as well established as it is, isn't quite that intuitively obvious.

I find it amusing that the most ridicilous and retarded version of god is also the most widespread one!

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Aug 7 2012, 06:57 AM) The real question is why would a supposedly rational person argue with someone who prefers @#(! found in a book written by an unknown author and attributed to some supernatural being, over scientific theories which are for all practical purposes proven?

it's because people sometimes shake themselves loose from a cult, and start to think critically and freely. One success out of a hundred tries makes it worth the while. Also superstition is still a hugely influential force globally, and it's important to try and shine a light in the darkness.

qqqqqq wrote:QUOTE (qqqqqq @ Aug 7 2012, 10:05 AM) I find it amusing that the most ridicilous and retarded version of god is also the most widespread one!

You're not wrong. Those who really go all out for religion tend to believe some of the most outrageous stuff. Maybe it's the technique of the Big Lie in action? The watered down Lutherian Christianity of the north just isn't magical enough anymore, so more and more people become disillusioned and don't bother with religion.

http://www.justfacts.com/

Nice site.