"I have never lost an argument under estimating the intelligence of an Atheist."
You should try making sense discussing religion.
10/8/2008 5:12:05 PM
"The Beginning of Genesis actually reads in English, That for which there were none before created the heaved up things." (emphasis mine)
What?! Where? In which translation? Cite or STFU.
10/8/2008 5:20:28 PM
Tip: When trying to sound smart, try not to sound like a dumbass.
And learn the proper uses of punctuation.
10/8/2008 5:30:16 PM
If Pete and Repeat were in a boat and Pete jumped out, who would be left?
The first time this came around I stopped reading at Thermodynamics. However, since this was voted for again, I decided to give it a full read.
I want my time back!!
10/8/2008 5:35:17 PM
And you've never won through overestimating your command of English.
"Atheists try to argue using science. which, in my opinion, almost obviously proves God exists." – "Almost obviously," which translates as "does not."
Stars "falling from the sky" is, if anything, the precise opposite of "flying away from us at incredible speeds," which is what the Doppler red shift demonstrates is occurring.
What you have here is the manipulation of vague gibberish. Can of shit, anyone?
10/8/2008 5:35:39 PM
Oh waiter? Could I have a large word salad with extra stupid and hold the punctuation and grammar please?
10/8/2008 5:37:19 PM
" Atheists try to argue using science. which, in my opinion, almost obviously proves God exists. "
Then why aren't you using science to prove to atheists that god exists? For that matter, why would the god-disproving atheists use science so much if it proves gods existence?
"I like to use Thermodynamics. Therein, our first law, everything moves to a state of disorder. Under this Law, our fuel, Hydrogen is abundant. The universal energy source. So if time were cyclic? We would have no Sun and we would have run out.
The red shift, Doppler effect, proves the singularity or origin, If you will. The Bible states that the stars will fall from the sky. In one of it's most confrontational verses. Which explains the reversion to this singularity."
OH. You have no understanding of what science is. Never mind.
10/8/2008 5:38:22 PM
Atheists are so frustrated...
...with your complete lack of coherence. You're all over the place here. I'm sure you LOVE to use Thermodynamics, the Doppler effect, etc in your "arguments", but you should really refrain until you can use them intelligently.
10/8/2008 5:46:23 PM
*blink* ... um... I can't made head nor tail of that. It must be English, I recognise the words...
10/8/2008 6:04:14 PM
Elohim does NOT mean "that for which there were none before."
Shamayim eth erets does NOT mean "the heaved up things."
I doubt John Clayton said any such thing. And if he did, he's a noobcake.
10/8/2008 6:15:47 PM
Groan... I won't even touch this one.
10/8/2008 6:19:37 PM
So much bs squeezed into one post.
10/8/2008 6:24:15 PM
More like this:
In-the-beginning created God (direct object) the-heavens and-(direct object) the-earth.
Does that sound like your translation, or the Big Bang, to you?
10/8/2008 6:40:40 PM
That's why you don't use the literal translation of anything, dumbass. It doesn't make any sense.
10/8/2008 6:44:26 PM
Is CMS trying to prove God exists, or trying to prove the Bible is true? He doesn't seem to know - he switches between the two.
I've never heard any intelligent atheist try to use science to prove God doesn't exist. Merely claiming that God doesn't exist by showing that something could have occurred (e.g., Big Bang, cosmic fine tuning, evolution) without God (post hoc fallacy) is no more valid than trying to prove something (e.g., Big Bang, cosmic fine tuning, evolution) must have required divine intervention (argument from personal incredulity).
10/8/2008 6:47:00 PM
What fuels them is the fact that Atheists are so frustrated. While Christians, for example, are content.
Perfectly natural. Ignorance is bliss; and if there's anything more frustrating to an intelligent, educated person than trying to talk some sense into the blissfully ignorant, I can't think of it.
The rest of your post, I can't even parse.
10/8/2008 7:10:54 PM
No wonder he thinks atheists are frustrated - ANYONE trying to debate with this shitbag would most certainly wind up frustrated.
I agree with myheadhurts: I want my time back!
10/8/2008 7:13:27 PM
From the word salad we can deduce the following:
1 CMS knows nothing of science
2 CMS never read the Bible
10/8/2008 7:15:52 PM
If these are your "arguments," I'm surprised anyone would even listen to you, much less debate you.
10/8/2008 7:19:30 PM
Bored One-time Poster
How many stars have fallen from the sky recently? Why was I not informed?
10/8/2008 7:30:02 PM
I like to use "Journal of Religion & Society"
The absence of exceptions to the negative correlation between absolute belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution, plus the lack of a significant religious revival in any developed democracy where evolution is popular, cast doubt on the thesis that societies can combine high rates of both religiosity and agreement with evolutionary science. Such an amalgamation may not be practical. By removing the need for a creator evolutionary science made belief optional. When deciding between supernatural and natural causes is a matter of opinion large numbers are likely to opt for the latter.
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so."
They set out to prove that religion was beneficial and came to the exact opposite conclusion.
10/8/2008 7:32:30 PM
If Christians are content (a big if) it may be because they are the majority and society gives them almost everything they desire.
Atheists are frustrated because insane beliefs, spread by the religious, pervade our society.
P.S. Supporting one's agrument with scientific evidence is the best one can do. Supporting it with ancient fairy tales is lame and silly.
10/8/2008 7:42:44 PM
"The Bible states that the stars will fall from the sky"
Which is a(nother) strike against the Bible, because THAT'S PHYSICALLY FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.
10/8/2008 7:45:56 PM
Typical troll. An ad hom in the opening challenge, then expects a reasoned debate. Back under the bridge you go.
10/8/2008 8:43:59 PM
The bible apparently has not yet learned that stars are much much larger than our planet, and do not "fall from the sky". IIRC, Chandra's Limit specifies that the minimum necessary mass of a body to support the fusion process is 10-20 times that of Jupiter, which is hundreds of times larger than Earth already.
The First Law of Thermodynamics describes the conservation of energy in a closed system.
Entropy (per 2nd Law) can be a very ordered state, btw.
10/8/2008 8:59:55 PM