|
Anonymous #19
|
|
You make I like the good postses. Very good. Make more and happy happy go between. yes
pleez?
|
Anonymous #1
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #11 said:
Quote:
Anonymous #3 said:
You know what, fuck you.
You're the reason why science has been held back. You're the reason why mankind has perpetuated itself in the darkest ignorance... blah blah blah
What a load of shit.
Preachy anti-religious types are just as bad. They are just as self-righteous, just as angry, just as fearful and intolerant. They just didn't join a club to do it with. Angry tirades and contempt don't change anyone's mind and they don't help anyone. You really trying to make the world a better place with your people-hating? You missed the point my friend. Religion is not the problem, it's the judgment and rejection of other people that is present in both your post and in fundamentalists' rants. Same shit, different style.
Well said.
|
Anonymous #7
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #17 said:
WTF brah!
There's not evidence to love thy neighbor brah, no experiments to back it up. Read Einstein brahski, it will blow your mind.
|
Anonymous #7
|
 Re: I'm not religious, but...  [Re: Anonymous #3]
#9624007 - 01/17/09 01:18 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #3 said:
Fail troll is fail.
By adopting a pseudo-atheistic viewpoint and using it incorrectly to make it look ridiculous in the eyes of theistic viewers, you instead only insult the intelligence of Shroomerites Anonymous.
You should be ashamed, brah.
No way, this is golden.
|
Anonymous #11
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #12 said:
What you fail to grasp is that there are different levels of certainty. If two people are arguing about the existence of the Easter Bunny, they aren't on equal footing because the premise is patently absurd. It is always the burden of those making extraordinary claims to back them up with extraordinary evidence. In the absence of this proof it is reasonable to assume that the claims are mistaken, or premature if we're being extremely charitable.
Don't be such a dork.
Who are you, swami? or just a fan?
Anyone can observe something first hand and have no inclination to convince someone else. Science misses everything that is not readily testable or describable in objective terms. Evidence is nice, but it's just a security blanket; it only makes a person less interested in other explanations and more attached to their belief. If you think present day science is the most well-equipped approach to every type of question, you are blind to a lot of possibilities.
|
Anonymous #2
|
|
Science tried to find god and failed. Fail #1
Science thinks this means there is no god. Fail #2
Science need to learn that it doesn't know everything.
|
Anonymous #3
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #11 said: Evidence is nice, but it's just a security blanket; it only makes a person less interested in other explanations and more attached to their belief. If you think present day science is the most well-equipped approach to every type of question, you are blind to a lot of possibilities.
In the first place, a scientific theory will be readily discredited as soon as new evidence is found that disproves it. There is no dogmatism in science, unlike in religion.
In the second place, science is the best methodology to date for understanding our Universe. What other possibilities do you even suggest?
Quote:
Anonymous #2 said:
Science tried to find god and failed. Fail #1
Science thinks this means there is no god. Fail #2
Science need to learn that it doesn't know everything.
Your first fail makes no sense whatsoever. There is no physical evidence for God anywhere.
Your second fail is utterly incorrect. Science makes no attempt to decree that God exists or God does not exist--all the scientific method tells us is that no evidence currently exists to support His existence. If evidence does occur, science would be happy to accept the existence of God.
I don't know what misconceptions you currently have about the nature of science, but it most certainly does not claim that it knows everything. In fact, there is no such thing as proof in science: only disproof of a theory based on data. But it is undeniable that science provides the best methodology for discovering truth about our Universe.
|
Anonymous #2
|
Re: Im not religious, but... [Re: Anonymous #3]
#9624363 - 01/17/09 02:47 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anonymous #3 said:
But it is undeniable that science provides the best methodology for discovering truth about our Universe.
So says who?
|
Anonymous #3
|
Re: Im not religious, but... [Re: Anonymous #2]
#9624389 - 01/17/09 02:52 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Because it requires that a theory be testable, verifiable, and able to offer predictions about the world around us. Do you have a better recommendation?
|
Anonymous #12
|
Re: Im not religious, but... [Re: Anonymous #3]
#9625184 - 01/17/09 08:58 AM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
|
Anonymous #2
|
|
Scientists will become extinct soon, because they are homos. Maybe they can get cloning going.
|
Anonymous #16
|
Re: Im not religious, but... [Re: Anonymous #2]
#9625542 - 01/17/09 12:10 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Your attacks on atheists just keep getting better and better.
|
Anonymous #20
|
Re: I'm not religious, but... [Re: Anonymous #1]
#9626452 - 01/17/09 04:03 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
jesus is just a plagorism of the egyption sun god. 
|
Anonymous #7
|
|
No. You all need to quit watching the history channel and discovery and thinking that you discovered real history.
|
Anonymous #3
|
Re: I'm not religious, but... [Re: Anonymous #7]
#9626954 - 01/17/09 05:48 PM (4 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
And correspondingly you need to quit reading books of fables and treating them as gospel.
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
