At least there'll be good internet connections in hell.
Organized Religion is so fucking dumb.
Religion is not dumb... people are dumb, including those who say something is dumb when they possess no knowledge on the subject matter. Pat Robertson does not represent all Christianity and he sure does not represent all religion, he simply states his opinions based on his theological point of view which is in a matter of fact- HETERODOX to traditional Christianity passed to us by Christ through his Apostles when Holy Spirit descended on them on the day of the Pentecost.
Religion is not dumb... people are dumb, including those who say something is dumb when they possess no knowledge on the subject matter.
So you went to Christian school for 5 years as a child, and in your opinion it makes you an expert on theological matters as well as gives you authority to call religion dumb… don’t you think you are the one who’s being ignorant here? Reading a Bible without understanding does not reveal you God’s wisdom and no “my friend”, your knowledge of Christianity does not exceed that of average Christian, otherwise you would have to possess a PhD in Theology which I’m willing to bet you don’t have.2. The 5 years I spent in bible class, youth group, chapel, and church was all about understanding the bible, not just simply reading it. I don't know how you make the assumption that the school and the churches would just read scripture and not discuss, brainstorm, and preach about its true meaning. The statement was made as a rebuttal to your assumption in which I had "no knowledge on the subject matter".
Your knowledge on Hell and Heaven is much distorted. Perhaps you need to discover Eastern Christian doctrine where you find that Hell is not a physical place underneath the Earth where sinners burn in flames for eternity -that is Dante’s phantasmagoria which he created for his delusional novel, and does not represent Biblical Hell in any shape or form. Hell is absence of communion with Heavenly Father in afterlife.
And yes, he (P.Robertson) is stating his opinion, because he simply is not a recognized authority in Christendom since his domain is televangelism in America which of course has nothing to do with Apostolic Church. Although that being said, he makes a good point which is very easy to misinterpret which I assume that you have done.6. If you think he needs to be a "recognized authority in christendom" to state a belief rather than an opinion, I suggest you look up the definitions of "belief" and "opinion". Just because what he said is disagreeable even from people of the same faith, doesn't mean the statement he is making is an opinion. It most clearly, according to definition, is his belief.
"How about the fact that someone like ad0lf h1tler (lol forums censor the word " h itler") could be accepted into heaven and forgiven of all sins, if he would have accepted jesus into his heart and not killed himself. Meanwhile a peaceful isolated indigenous tribe somewhere in the jungle all burn in hell simply because they didn't realize on their own, without any bible, that Jesus is the son of God and sacrificed himself for our sins?" ~ My words from the 6th paragraph.
6th paragraph once again a distorted view on Traditional Christian doctrine (who taught you this nonsense?).
I could go for some laughs. :mrgreen:You are laughing at oneself only.
***Reserved for the wall of text***
Why is this "Traditional Christian" reading of the Bible more valuable than any other ? The Bible is a collection of books written over the years by dozens of people. When someone interprets something written in the Bible in a particular non-literal way, what is the proof that it's what God intented ? How certain are we that the people that wrote it got it right in the first place ?
Now seriously, let's define a "belief system" as a statement which cannot be validated or invalidated through experiment (such as : "there's an undetectable rose unicorn behind the Moon"). In other words, a religion's dogma. If out of the infinitely many possible exclusive (as in, stating that any other religion is false) belief systems that could exist one of them is true, what are the odds it's yours ?
CrazyCracka420
You can't offend or make me mad bro, I'll pray for you.
God Bless
CrazyCracka420
Only thing i'm interested in is what is "mouth breather"?
So I see... you are hiding behind your computer and freedom of speech... that's cool, I understand... however u might need to get your terminology straight... u not a dick, u are a pussy...
I think everybody who ever used the internet is tired of these godargumets. All the years the internet has shaped me I have the perfect argument to win every religious debate:(click to show/hide)
I think everybody who ever used the internet is tired of these godargumets. All the years the internet has shaped me I have the perfect argument to win every religious debate:or(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Taser I really have no clue how morality would exist if not for religion. I'm assuming people who are raised by non-religious parents are taught morality. I think it's part nature and nurture. People have guilt when they do something wrong. We weren't taught about life/death as young kids, and the first time my brother killed a duck with a rock we felt fucking horrible and miserable to have witnessed such a terrible act. I think as you age and become more mature, you are able to discern right from wrong.
I think it's a pretty much black and white thing (right vs wrong) in some circumstances. If it doesn't effect anyone else, and isn't harming anyone else, than you're good to go. Once you start affecting other people, is where the grey area comes into effect.
I don't know the word for it, but there's a philosophy about passing your genes on, where you will risk your life for the protection of your kin (or otherwise people who are close to your genetic makeup) in order to have the genome passed on.
I think religion was important for helping people become more civilized, but I think that it's usefulness in the 21st century is not as important. If you want to believe in fairy tales, that's your choice, but it shouldn't be used to dictate what other people can and cannot do.
I feel like a walking contradiction in this post, because I want to also state that "morality" laws are fucking dumb and should be abolished (at least the ones where nobody is hurt or affected negatively, except the people choosing to participate). So maybe "morals" and "morality" is a vague term.
Get back to the internet tough guy stuff, that was fucking hilarious.
Well I'm not picking on you here. I was just curious.
I'm of the idea that morality as we know it doesn't exist except in emotional responses. Thus morality is just emotional responses to situations and events. Thus morality truly doesn't exist as we know it.
You could say its still morality but I wouldn't say so. Because morality goes off on "This is right. This is wrong." If I am right then its not whether something is right or wrong but just how it makes you feel. Thus if you dislike something, you get the feeling its wrong as your brain tries to interpret it.
How did we go from arguing about God, to internet tough guy, to arguing about the origin of morality?
Get back to the internet tough guy stuff, that was fucking hilarious.
I'd agree with you there. As given in the example of my brother and I throwing rocks at ducks and not realizing what we were doing was wrong until the visceral response we felt to the outcome of our actions.
I like the idea of not fucking someone over if given the chance, not because of consequences (either with laws or promises of wonderful places when you die, or of Santa not giving you a present), but because people choose not to be a jerk.
Hard to say whether it's the former or latter, having grown up in a highly structured society with laws and consequences (as well as all the other pressures, such as Santa not giving you a present).
That being said, if Yaro wants to come at me online, I'll fight him in game. Any time, any place.
The other guy gave up. No one else for Huseby to be internet tough guy to.
Nah Huseby wasn't the internet tough guy. It's the heavyweight champ Yaro.
It's always those assholes that did some sort of martial art and they're so eager to use it. The funny thing is they think it's a fair fight, fighting someone who has no training versus their years.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Fuck, why'd I read this garbage? I actually have to think today...
I don’t quite understand what you are referencing to by “Traditional Christian” reading of the Bible? Perhaps you mean interpretation? There is no interpretation of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity as Orthodox Christian is not free to believe whatever he wants to believe or interpret the Holy Scripture in whatever way strikes his fancy. Nor are bishops free to teach whatever they want. All are called to accept and live by the apostolic tradition, which has been handed down uncorrupt from the first century until today.
When Christ ascended to heaven, He did not leave behind a system of philosophy or a school. He left His Church, which was a concrete, historical community there in Jerusalem. From Jerusalem, the Christian Gospel spread throughout the known world, and local Churches were created. This principle can be summarized by the following phrase: no unity of life without unity of faith. Where is the proof? Alas… Ours is a generation which seeks after signs and wonders (cf. Matthew 12:39)… Many concepts that are included in Christian dogma are impossible for non believer to comprehend or come to terms with. Bible is not a collection of books. Such statement is a gross oversimplification, it is rather a divinely inspired compendium recorded by handful of people, however all of these works are authored by God.
We know what was meant in the Bible because of the history and Apostolic succession, the body of knowledge passed down from one Holy Father to the other and unto the flock. When you say that one may interpret the Bible in his own way it is a fallacy because Christianity is not a set of rules that one may follow on one’s own. It is a life which can only be lived in community, in the Church that Christ Himself founded.
To a non believer, it may be hard to accept the fact that some things in life don’t need to be validated in order to be true.
Love requires no validation it’s just is
, so is faith, as it has no known measure and its essence cannot be captured and studied in a laboratory.
religion is a dogma in purest sense of this word-a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.To you possibilities and odds are infinite, to me the possibility is certain and finite first the cessation of physical life and then possibility becomes two fold either isolation from God and eventual destruction of one’s soul or an eternal life in his presence, Christian makes this judgment on the basis of neither abstract theories nor his own limited, individual experience, but upon the corporate experience of the Church.
The foundation of everything the Church believes and teaches is the fact that God is not some impersonal essence or philosophical principle, but the Father Who exists in an eternal communion of love with His Son and His Spirit and Who speaks to those whom He has created face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend (Exodus 33:11).
Mocking someone for their belief in god is very ignorant
and narrow-minded
Your fanatical atheist attitude
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I read the bible some time ago, best laugh since the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Especielly when I though about the fact that people believe in it.
Religion is not dumb... people are dumb, including those who say something is dumb when they possess no knowledge on the subject matter. Pat Robertson does not represent all Christianity and he sure does not represent all religion, he simply states his opinions based on his theological point of view which is in a matter of fact...
...He's not simply stating his opinion, He's saying that if you play violent video games: "...that stuff will chop off your access, and you will go dead in your heart. That is the danger of all of this".
He's stating what does or does not constitute as healthy actions in the context of a relationship w/ God. It's his belief of the way things are and it goes further than an opinion.
If you were to tell him "that's just your opinion." He would deny that it is an opinion, and back up his statement with bible verses to reinforce/validate his beliefs...
And yes, he (P.Robertson) is stating his opinion, because he simply is not a recognized authority in Christendom since his domain is televangelism in America which of course has nothing to do with Apostolic Church. Although that being said, he makes a good point which is very easy to misinterpret which I assume that you have done...
If you think he needs to be a "recognized authority in christendom" to state a belief rather than an opinion, I suggest you look up the definitions of "belief" and "opinion". Just because what he said is disagreeable even from people of the same faith, doesn't mean the statement he is making is an opinion. It most clearly, according to definition, is his belief.
be•lief
[bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that theearth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something notimmediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthyof belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith
I'm not afraid of anyone who breathes the same air as me.
Now seriously, let's define a "belief system" as a statement which cannot be validated or invalidated through experiment (such as : "there's an undetectable rose unicorn behind the Moon"). In other words, a religion's dogma. If out of the infinitely many possible exclusive (as in, stating that any other religion is false) belief systems that could exist one of them is true, what are the odds it's yours ?
Religion is not dumb... people are dumb, including those who say something is dumb when they possess no knowledge on the subject matter.
I'm against homosexuality...
Let me rephrase. I've heard people say they are disgusted by the thought of homosexuality. Whatever, you don't have to join them anyway. But how can one be against homosexuality. It's not like gay people will ever stop existing. It's like being against sunrises, against cloudy weather, against trees growing. Funny: now that I think about it being against homosexuality means being against nature. [/spoiler]are you against murder? history shows its never going to stop, i guess being against murder means being against nature.
are you against murder? history shows its never going to stop, i guess being against murder means being against nature.That's the wrong thought you have there. Murder is the act. The "feeling" that causes the act is hate or whatever. So saying "I'm against homosexuality" is like saying "I'm against people hating other people". You will neither stop some men loving other men, and you will also not stop people hating.
1. a Darwinist point of view. The simplistic way to say it is survival of the fittest, BUT what is the fittest? the fittest is the being within the species which CAN PRODUCE THE MOST OFFSPRING! Now can 2 men or 2 women produce a child? NO!!!!!!! so therefore its not really against nature since according to darwin nature opposes(or selects against) the homosexual.So according to your thought, homosexuals are not "fit for life" and will therefore "die out" and not spread their "defective genes", and therefore homosexuality will die out by itself? Yeah, could be that the fact that homosexuality is proven to exist with many mammals for thousands of years doesn't really support that claim. And I guess you have similar feelings towards: People choosing to be single their entire life, people deciding not to have kids, people that can't have kids, priests, etc... or is it somehow exclusive to homosexuals?
2.Christian ...blablaprotip: don't use 2000 year old books as a guide for social interaction in the 21st century.
2.Christian(wont include Jew since Im not familiar with their stance being that they do not have the new testament). Homosexuality is wrong, it is that its a sin(any christian who denies this has not read the Bible)that said, lust is a sin, stealing is a sin, hate is a sin, ect(im sure you are familiar with the more violent ones). Also EVERY SINGLE MAN AND WOMAN AND CHILD is a sinner. Therefore, is there a difference between the sin of homosexuality and that of stealing? no the man who steals is equally bad as the man who loves another man. The most important part? all sins are forgiven(if one believes in Jesus, ect. you guys clearly know the drill since this post has had some intelligent thought). So at the end of the day all sinners are sinners.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
From a "technical" POV there's no difference between being attracted to females, males, underages, animals, objects, whatever - it's just the way your body is. The difference is that hetero and homosexuality does not hurt anyone else. There's of course no question that sex with children is forbidden and that is good.
The question gets more complicated when the partner is close to 16/17/18. In most countries, society agreed on that young people like that are not yet able really consent, and are too weak of mind to decide for themselves. What the correct age is, is up to the democracy to decide. But it's of course hard to find a hard line for that. A 17 year old doesnt turn clever and reasonable at the 18th birth day. But you have to put a line somewhere, I guess.
Also, media always depicts paedophiles as evil monsters out there to hurt children. Nearly all paedophiles are normal human beings with the knowing that they have an "illegal and immoral sexdrive" - and would never act on it. Just like not every horny guy goes out raping women in the park, not every paedophile tries to have sex with children. Only a very small percentage is actually "dangerous".
Well yes a line has to be drawn, but for example in the UK the criminal age of responsibility is 10 years old. That means when you hit 10, if you commit a crime you will be tried for it because by that age you should know what the heck you are doing. Now that is in stark contrast to the age of consent which is 16 where you supposedly don't know what you are doing till then.
Arguably you get homosexuals who abuse others ect, and so we should make it illegal because of this. But as you pointed out there are plenty who don't, and just as equal, there are plenty of 'paedophiles' who don't go around abusing children.
If m is the number of theories that contain the rose unicorn, and n is the number of theories without it. Then the probability of being in an universe with the unicorn is P=lim(m+n->infinity) (m/m+n). The rose unicorn is undetectable that means causaly ineffective. This means that, if theory A without the unicorn is logically consistent (*), so is theory A* which is exactly the same except with the unicorn. Likewise for every working theory B with the unicorn there exists one B* without it. Therefore m=n. Which makes P=lim(2*m->infinity) (m/2*m) i.e. P= 50%.
This isn't entirely true yet though. All that is required is that the unicorn can not causally interact with anything that can causaly interact with anything (that can ... etc) that we can see. This, however, like an unicorn interacting with nothing, is a closed system. Therefore what is said applies as well. However, it means that there may be in fact more theories containing the unicorn than theories that do not (since there can be multiple closed system of things the unicorn interacts with that can be inserted). So m>=n and P>=50%.
Now, rose unicorns are so awesome that they have to exist because they wouldn't be all that awesome if they didn't. So, really, it's impossible for rose unicorns not to exist. P=100% which is consistent with what we proved before.
There are people running around and killing unicorns with razors but they are evil.
(*) There has been the objection that causality and logic are not exactly the same. This misses the point however and is invalid. It cannot however be discussed in the scope of this silly post. Interested readers may find a thorrough explanations in the post "The Unicorn in a nutshell". A short overview of the argument can be found in "My little pony".
ITT: Insecure atheists mock religion to feel intellectually superior.
I'd like to point out I'm an atheist aswell, I just think your attitudes about the whole thing are shitty.
Why do some atheists try so hard to disprove a god they claim doesn't even exist in the frist place?
Why should you care what others believe in?
I'm against homosexuality, yet when someone tells me they are gay, I don't go crazy to the point of insults and try to turn them straight.
I just ignore it, why can't people do the same for religion?
No ones trying to shove it down your throat, so why should you care?
It's funny how people talk about "live and let live" and shit, yet those same people, mock others religious beliefs and try to keep them from living how they want to live
Anyway this damn thread should just be locked and left to die, but knowing this community, I doubt that's gonna happen
The real question here: Why is Huseby in a clan that is heavily god themed if he is so much against religion?
Why just the Western Europe, Kafein? Apart from Poland (or so i hear, anyway), Eastern Europe (or at least north-eastern) is dominantly atheistic. Probably the single positive effect of soviet occupation.
[...] I've heard people say they are disgusted by the thought of homosexuality. [...]I am. I've always been. At least as long as I can remember. I dunno why but the mere thought gives me the creeps.
Well god damn, I am white knighting aren't I?
What I said was mostly in response to Huseby's jerk ass tone that I took as "Get educated and educated people don't believe in god," which I didn't really see as a debate. So I decided to mock his standpoint. Maybe draw a few comparisons to the stereotypical super right wing, preachy Christian, indirectly.
And what do you think your tuff? fuck you, asians could drive good. Come fight me irl, unless you don't have enough lbs(not even worth an American dollar) to get a plain ticket.
I don't believe in any God.That makes you an atheist, and being an atheist doesn't lead to everything being caused at random. Atheism only answers the question: "Do you believe in God/gods?", if the answer is no, then you are an atheist.
Hey, huseby is being a jerk (he even recognises it) but I think many of his silly images are funny, maybe because I never saw most of them before, maybe because he is aiming at an incredibly easy target too "the stereotypical super right wing, preachy Christian". I don't see how any modern European Christian could get offended by "teach the controversy" jokes.
Why do some atheists try so hard to disprove a god they claim doesn't even exist in the frist place?
Why should you care what others believe in?
I'm against homosexuality, yet when someone tells me they are gay, I don't go crazy to the point of insults and try to turn them straight. I just ignore it, why can't people do the same for religion?
No ones trying to shove it down your throat, so why should you care?
It's funny how people talk about "live and let live" and shit, yet those same people, mock others religious beliefs and try to keep them from living how they want to live
Anyway this damn thread should just be locked and left to die, but knowing this community, I doubt that's gonna happen
I see my selve as a agnostic atheist and I would really like to not care what others believe.
BUT: Religious organizations are shoving their believe down our throat.
In many parts of germany childcare is still in the hand of the two major churches (catholics and protestants) and this results in the fact that you could loose your childcareplace when you get divorced.
Many young lads and ladies get opressed in their sexual developement in the name of different believes.
Worldwide boys get cut of their foreskin(might be not that bad) and in some regions girls get cut of their genitals and are sewn close in the name of religion.
In the US religious organization try to keep children away from scientific education about biology and earth history.
and that is the reason why it is essential for any society to keep up the discussion about faith, believe, tradition, religion and their role in modern seciety. If we would not we would still sacrifice people every now and then if the crops are bad.
we would still burn people with wisdom about herbs and medicine. we would still raid and kill in the name of the stronger, better, mightier good.
So all religions addopted to the changing of society during time and they have to otherwise they become worthless.
And this is why this dicussion must not stop.
This
Yes but what happens when that discussion devolves into nothing but childish bs and insults, would the discussion still go on?
But like I said, I'm probably just digging a deeper grave, and looking stupid.
Interesting point about non-exclusive belief systems. But it still ends up being and indetermination of type infinite over infinite, which isn't equal to 1/2. It doesn't hold with exclusive belief systems, which afaik include all big monotheist religions. The event of either being true is stochastically impossible (*).(click to show/hide)
I see my selve as a agnostic atheist and I would really like to not care what others believe.1.Religious organizations aiding healthcare is not a bad thing, it is a bad thing if they take children away, ect.
BUT: Religious organizations are shoving their believe down our throat.
In the US religious organization try to keep children away from scientific education about biology and earth history.
And if you believe in any other type of god you are a theist. :wink:My point I was trying to make was more about the "Freedom ends where another freedom begins"-part anyway... :P
Point is, atheism/theism is a yes/no stance.
Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge and not belief.(click to show/hide)
Not that any of this actually matters. Call yourself whatever you please. I usually just call myself an agnostic atheist, and if they ask me to clarify what I mean, I say explicit atheist weak agnostic, and occasional apatheist. That tends to stop any further questions.
ALSO this is a response to another post which I dont feel like finding to quote,
You say religion has changed its viewpoint over time to adapt, Religion IS HIGHLY CRITICIZED for this but then why is "secular science" allowed to change its viewpoint? Every single person with a Brain and any knowledge of the Bible sees that there is room for interpretation, yet when the interpretation changes Christians are yelled at and Science celebrated? I personally think the 2 coexist but thats just me.
Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on
1.Religious organizations aiding healthcare is not a bad thing, it is a bad thing if they take children away, ect.
2. I know of few Christian organizations at least where I live who refuse biology and earth history, most of them have chosen the "old earth Christianity" belief and believe a sort of evolution, as does the catholic church.
3.To say that Christian and religious organizations are shoving their beliefs down childrens throats and secular/atheist ones are not is a total sham. If I go to school and my textbook and professors aren't allowed to discuss religion in the slightest(not a specific one but in general) and some(not all-very few actually) make fun of religion in the classroom, that is equally bad if not worse.
ALSO this is a response to another post which I dont feel like finding to quote,
You say religion has changed its viewpoint over time to adapt, Religion IS HIGHLY CRITICIZED for this but then why is "secular science" allowed to change its viewpoint? Every single person with a Brain and any knowledge of the Bible sees that there is room for interpretation, yet when the interpretation changes Christians are yelled at and Science celebrated? I personally think the 2 coexist but thats just me.
May I ask you whom you quoted there??
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
May I ask you whom you quoted there??
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
You can't prove it's not corrupted.
To me, your faith is much more about humans than about God.
To Yaro:
Interesting. An Orthodox Christian defending the faith.
2. The Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.
Here comes an example:
I see your video with all the gold and plingpling. And then I remember Mt 19:21
(Jesus said to him, If you have a desire to be complete, go, get money for your property, and give it to the poor, and you will have wealth in heaven: and come after me.)
can you help me to understand how this is still the same faith without adding or substracting from it?
I will try my best... First of all, the quote you provided does not refer to the service, or it does not say how we should worship. Needless to say, Jesus did not teach us HOW to worship God, humanity has worshiped God prior to the coming of messiah, but WHY we worship Him. Our traditions by which we Christians worship God come from Judaism with appropriate changes, for example: the Jewish liturgical day, the yearly calendar of fasts and feasts and the belief that worship is a sacrifice directed toward God. If you look at the historic garment of high priests in Israel Temple, you will see that they wore a very elaborate dress. Therefore, there is no contradiction to the continuity of the historic tradition when we look at our priests' liturgical garments today. That being said, although Jesus himself was wearing humble garments and lived in humility does not mean that we should come to worship in his temple wearing casual clothes. Also, remember that what priests wear during the Divine Liturgy is not what they wear outside of it. Orthodox priests do dress very humbly(Black robe and a head piece in accordance to their rank) and once the Liturgy is over they remove the liturgical garments. That might not be the most elaborate answer to your question feel free to ask further questions if you have any doubts.
Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name; worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.Psalms 29:2
From a "technical" POV there's no difference between being attracted to females, males, underages, animals, objects, whatever - it's just the way your body is. The difference is that hetero and homosexuality does not hurt anyone else. There's of course no question that sex with children is forbidden and that is good.
The question gets more complicated when the partner is close to 16/17/18. In most countries, society agreed on that young people like that are not yet able really consent, and are too weak of mind to decide for themselves. What the correct age is, is up to the democracy to decide. But it's of course hard to find a hard line for that. A 17 year old doesnt turn clever and reasonable at the 18th birth day. But you have to put a line somewhere, I guess.
Also, media always depicts paedophiles as evil monsters out there to hurt children. Nearly all paedophiles are normal human beings with the knowing that they have an "illegal and immoral sexdrive" - and would never act on it. Just like not every horny guy goes out raping women in the park, not every paedophile tries to have sex with children. Only a very small percentage is actually "dangerous".
The Orthodox Church teaches today exactly the same thing it was teaching 2000 years ago
Yes I can, however, the question is whether my proof is good enough for you... on the other hand feel free to provide a historic proof that the the Eastern Orthodox Church has corrupted practices... I seriously would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.
1. The Orthodox Church has maintained an unbroken historical continuity with the original Church founded by Jesus in Jerusalem.
2. The Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the Saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.
3.The Orthodox Church faithfully worships God the Father in Spirit and in Truth, providing mankind with personal access to the life and grace of the All-holy Trinity.
4. The Orthodox Church has produced untold numbers of Saints throughout the centuries – persons who bear within themselves the uncreated grace of God.
In summary: The Orthodox Church of today does not imitate that original Christian community; She is that community. The historical continuity of the Orthodox Church, therefore, is the first pillar of Her claim to be the one, authentic Church of Christ. Others may try to imitate the Church of the New Testament, some more closely than others, but no Christian denomination can claim an organic unity with Her. The Orthodox Church teaches today exactly the same thing it was teaching 2000 years ago and exactly the same thing that it was teaching 100 years ago. The basic structure of the Christian Orthodox service(we call it Liturgy) today is the same as it was 2000 years ago, when first Christians met in secret to worship, as it was in the grand Churches of the Roman Empire, as it was in the 15th century Russia. Following is a description of a typical Christian service in the year 150:
And on the day which is called the Sun’s Day there is an assembly of all who live in the towns or country; and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president gives a discourse, admonishing us and exhorting us to imitate these excellent examples. Then we all rise together and offer prayers; and, as I said above, on the conclusion of our prayer, bread is brought and wine and water; and the president similarly offers up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his power, and the people assent with Amen. Then follows the distribution of the Eucharistic Gifts and the partaking of them by all; and they are sent to the absent by the hands of the deacons (Apology I).
shortened version of today's Divine Liturgy.
Another point I'd like to make in light of what has been said in this thread is that, if the message of God has been kept untainted by the Orthodox Church and every verset of the Bible following the Orthodox Church's reading is true, how comes current science literally disproves some parts of it ?
Before you read below: Tell me one. I like hearing these because I find them Fascinating. The listed example below only illistrates a facet of science which is just as belief based as religion.
Ah, if you use the most common example(IE Carbon Dating) that is actually, and never will be, an Untested Theory. Carbon Dating uses the mathematical principle of Exponential Decay. But, you see, there is 1 thing wrong with carbon dating. Anything past written records can't be trusted. Because, Carbon Dating relies on this theory: What has happened in the world, now, has always happened at the same rate before now.
Logically, we can see that, if we Carbon date the Mona Lisa, it will give us exactly the year it was made. We can then verify this because of Historical records. Scientists and Mathematicians have taken that same principle and said: Since it's this way now, then it has always had the same rate.(IE Carbon decays at the same rate regardless, thereby meaning that if the rate of decay is the same, then you can calculate the year once you find the amount of decay.)
Point being: Anything that relates to objects of time before written record can't be trusted due to the implicit theory of rate of change being equivalent.
And, btw, this is proven. Look it up. We can't mathematically determine the ago rating of things older than a written record corroborates. This is why archeology is so important. Finding the wheres, and then trying to match multiple records to prove an item or object.
.. science which is just as belief based as religion.
By rejecting the principle of stationarity, it's not carbon dating that you put in doubt but almost everything science has ever said or done. We suppose that when we find a rule, it has always been the same because that's the simplest hypothesis that is coherent with our observations. All findings done via carbon dating are coherent with previous scientific knowledge. The "previous" part is important because this implies that no human tried to skew either theories in order to make it work, it just so happens that everything fits in. That's not a very frequent thing with scientific hypotheses and a very strong indication that something is right with what is being done. For example, Kepler's law linking the mass of planets and their orbit (I don't remember the exact terms but that's not relevant) worked for all known planets at the time. That's not really a feat because anybody can come up with a mathematical expression complicated enough to match the data. The impressive thing about it is that it was extremely simple (an equation of the type x^2 = y^3) and, more importantly, that we later found out that it correctly matched the data of a planet Kepler had no idea existed. The same thing occurs with theories that are validated through carbon dating.
This principle is not based on belief, it is based on pragmatism and also the most basic aspect of scientific work : find the simplest model which fits known data. Up until now, we never needed anything evolving with the age of the universe, so up until now we assumed there was none. By breaking this principle (I'm sure you have heard of the name Occam's Razor) you can basically add any spurious and trivial hypothesis you want and call it science.
Btw, this also means that in the same line of thought I can make the hypothesis of the existence some phenomemon that would have happened at some point in 1044 and which added a negation in an important sentence in all representations of the Bible, including people's memories. You can't prove that it never happened, just like I can't prove there is nothing that changes with the age of the universe, but it is also equally useless to explain the universe as we know it and therefore not accepted by the scientific community.
Suppose, suppose, suppose! Yes that's right! We suppose they work because we haven't been contradicted. If, at anypoint, we find that stationairity changed, what happens then? In terms of Science, nothing, actually. Most science isn't built on past reference data(other than theories of change and evolution for things like the universe or soil mechanics, etc).
Plate tectonics happens. Proven.
Did it happen faster, same, or slower: Science says same, but we can't prove.
Same with other major theories. The basic Application is PROVEN, but anything that relates to length of time outside of 10,000+ years is speculation on that stationary principle.
It doesn't change science.
Algebra, Calculus, Newtonian Physics are all unchanged by this principle(Unsure of modern Physics applications as they are outside of my interest/learning). That's the thing about Math, it is a logical, and precise tool. Carbon dating, though is an empirical application of the current mathematical application of Radioactive decay.
All I said was that we take it as a fact that stuff happened "linearly," for lack of better word, through time.
And that's why science is nice.
Theory(based on Observation) > Data > Confirmation or Change > New Theory > Law(End)
But what we have on some things is this:
Theory(based on Observation) > No previous data > Confirmation > New Theory > Law(End)
It's similar to Quantom Mechanics. We have knowledge its there(mathematically, it was shown to be true, if I remember correctly), but we are still at the DATA stage.
Here's a Fun question: If we lose the gravity from Sol, how long until we lose the light too?
(That's a classic Newtonian Answer)
Just to emphasise on the changing religion part: in middle ages scientists were persecuted for heresies, such as suggesting that the Earth is not flat, or is not the center of the Universe. Only when these scientists were proven to be correct beyond any doubt, did the church "accept" this as the truth (pretended it had never said otherwise).
How is this anything other than the absolute proof that the church knows jack-shit? How can anyone still accept the statements of the church to be anything other than the self-preserving statements of a select group of simple, greedy old men?
When the bible mentions people living before the flood as over 500 years old, is it really meant to be taken literally? Or is it simply trying to state something like "People before the flood lived better"?
[...]I am far from being an expert but... that question is rather... well... you know...
Here's a Fun question: If we lose the gravity from Sol, how long until we lose the light too?
(That's a classic Newtonian Answer)
[...]
And if you believe in any other type of god you are a theist. :wink:
Point is, atheism/theism is a yes/no stance.
Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge and not belief.
Why just the Western Europe, Kafein? Apart from Poland (or so i hear, anyway), Eastern Europe (or at least north-eastern) is dominantly atheistic. Probably the single positive effect of soviet occupation.
When the bible mentions people living before the flood as over 500 years old, is it really meant to be taken literally? Or is it simply trying to state something like "People before the flood lived better"?
Also that the people lived better before the flood is said nowhere. The human heart (or all flesh on earth) is evil before and after the flood, the only thing changes is that God allows animals to be eaten, sets up some rules to restrict the chaos/evil and makes a covenant with the humans.
Yaro:I'll answer your question with questions
And there's the rub. How is a 2000-4000 year old instructions relevant in today's world? I can see if you take the teachings with a grain of salt, but you're talking a literal interpretation, are you not? I think a lot has changed in 2000-4000 years, and we've learned a lot as people.
I am far from being an expert but... that question is rather... well... you know...
We wouldn't lose the light at all. I mean, why would we? The only gravitation-related model that is influencing light in a way that it would matter is a black hole. Other than that, light gets bend a little but still travelling and it will still be faster than Earth is travelling in any way.
Not to mention that in the case of the gravitational influence of the sun gone, there wouldn't be anyone on Earth left to witness this.
So, my question now: Is there a sound when a tree falls when there is nobody to hear it?
an other quote of you:"Not a single thing that I have posted here is my opinion, but the official position of the Church."
Therefore, I’m afraid that if I try to explain the verse, I might start giving my personal opinions which is of course forbidden.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
An oldie, but never loses relevance.
Actually, that was a question that came up under Einsteins changes to Physics. Before hand, if we had lost the suns gravity(IE the sun blew up, dissappeared, whatever), Newton said it was instantaneous that Gravity would be lost, but light would still be here for the 8 minutes of time it would be left coming.I am not sure on this and too lazy to google for it but iirc the speed of light isn't constant (that's proven by now afaik) and there is actually something faster than light - in theory that is but it's all theory after all anyway. Some CERN experiment or something... I've read an article but don't remember when/where...
But, Einstein changed that by stating that the effect of gravity can be measured by light. IE: Light was the intergalatic speed limit and nothing can happen faster than the speed of light.
SO: If the sun disappeared today, the same time we lost it's light would be the same time we lost it's gravitation in the solar system.
Just what Kafien said. Modern Physics changed the way we thought of gravity. I mean, it makes LOGICAL sense now, but at the time it was perfectly valid. One reason science is so nice. It tries to improve upon every existing facet it can.(click to show/hide)
I am not sure on this and too lazy to google for it but iirc the speed of light isn't constant (that's proven by now afaik) and there is actually something faster than light - in theory that is but it's all theory after all anyway. Some CERN experiment or something... I've read an article but don't remember when/where...
Just as a side note.
Oh, and one thing that came to my mind right now actually:
The Christian church was prosecuting people when they said the Earth turns around the Sun, is not flat and all that. That's a specific point where I, as a person of science, am actually jealous about the Islam and the Koran. There are actually several verses and passages where it says something along the line "A good Muslim cherishes the pursuit for knowledge and discovery of nature and it's laws." Something like that, don't quote me on it, you get the idea.
Just a quick smartass comment: People believing that the earth is flat is actually just a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#.22Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth.22_in_modern_historiography
Just a quick smartass comment: People believing that the earth is flat is actually just a myth.The Sun around the Earth part is true tho :P and nobody likes smartasses - just saying :wink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#.22Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth.22_in_modern_historiography
The Sun around the Earth part is true tho :P and nobody likes smartasses - just saying :wink:
Doesn't change my point tho (and it doesn't really matter for which reason people were burned) :D
Just a quick smartass comment: People believing that the earth is flat is actually just a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#.22Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth.22_in_modern_historiography
Yaro, the point is this:(click to show/hide)
I think most people, including christians, agree that the bible is not the word of god, but a book with stories written by a few guys. But is that a problem? That doesn't mean that god does not exist.
Edit: now that I think of it - when you mean your churches teachings did not change - does that mean you take the bible literally? Creation of the world in 7 days, noahs ark, etc...?
But, that was semi plausable. Everything rotates, and orbits, so the theory that the Earth was the Center was plausible if one just looked up. But if one actually took a telescope and measured, it was a different story then.
Similar, really, to all the climate change stuff.
Does it happen? Yea. What is the cause: (Debate is primarily here)
Just a quick smartass comment: People believing that the earth is flat is actually just a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#.22Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth.22_in_modern_historiography
I think most people, including christians, agree that the bible is not the word of god, but a book with stories written by a few guys. But is that a problem? That doesn't mean that god does not exist.
Edit: now that I think of it - when you mean your churches teachings did not change - does that mean you take the bible literally? Creation of the world in 7 days, noahs ark, etc...?
If a Christian says that the Bible is not the word of God, I'm sorry but he is not a Christian, if Orthodox Christian says that the Bible is not the word of God, he is a subject to excommunication. I don't see a problem with opinions, however, if you ask me a direct question I'll tell you a direct answer.
Yes, I take the Bible literally, however, i would be careful about drawing any conclusions... ask specific questions and afterwards form your opinions.
an other quote of you:"Not a single thing that I have posted here is my opinion, but the official position of the Church."
Is this your thing or a thing your church requires to not think yourselve and come to your own conclusion.
I find it very dangerousonly to repeat what an authority says instead of questioning it first. and if you find they are right you can bring it to the word as your opinion as well.
Do you believe dinosaur bones were put on earth by god to test your faith?
(click to show/hide)
I really find discussing mythologies invented by shepherds who lived thousands of years ago and knew next to nothing about the world borderline ridiculous. Previous posting in this thread was probably a huge mistake, now manchildren trying to convince that their fairy tales are real will pop up in my 'new posts' box till the end of time.
How do dinosaur bones test my faith?
Actually this thread is much more interesting than that.
I think chadz meant that the age of fossils means the earth cannot have been created around 6000 years ago but is much older. We go back to what I was saying about contradictions between science and Christian beliefs.
My mistake then - I assumed the fact that Dinosaurs lived Millions of years in the past, while humans are only 40k-ish years old, contradicts with genesis that claims the earth was created 6k years ago and dinosaurs and humans were created in the same week - and somehow the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs spared the humans.
The reason I asked is I had a gf many years ago that was a seven-day-adventist or something and she told me that with the dinosaur bones and how it's testing her faith. She told me that dinosaurs never existed, they were merely hidden by god as a test.
just one more odd question, sorry for being so interrogating:
Whats your opinion about the death sentence? Are you for it or against it?
Do you believe dinosaur bones were put on earth by god to test your faith?
How do dinosaur bones test my faith?
You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it.
Listening to a creationist scientist can be really disturbing:
But, that was semi plausable. Everything rotates, and orbits, so the theory that the Earth was the Center was plausible if one just looked up. But if one actually took a telescope and measured, it was a different story then.
I think most people, including christians, agree that the bible is not the word of god, but a book with stories written by a few guys. But is that a problem? That doesn't mean that god does not exist.If someone believes that they are not a Christian. Also The Bible is open to interpretation, so yes it can change(reference to tasers post from a few pages back). If anyone says they understand 100% of what the bible says and they know they are right they are wrong.
My mistake then - I assumed the fact that Dinosaurs lived Millions of years in the past, while humans are only 40k-ish years old, contradicts with genesis that claims the earth was created 6k years ago and dinosaurs and humans were created in the same week - and somehow the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs spared the humans.That belief in a literal 7 days(and the calculation to 6k years or whatever it is) was made popular by ONE man(and then aparently held to the rest of Christians). I believe in evolution and I believe in God, do some other Christians disagree with me? yes, do some agree with me? Absolutely. I am an old earth creationist. But again that is my view.
The reason I asked is I had a gf many years ago that was a seven-day-adventist or something and she told me that with the dinosaur bones and how it's testing her faith. She told me that dinosaurs never existed, they were merely hidden by god as a test.
If someone believes that they are not a Christian. Also The Bible is open to interpretation, so yes it can change(reference to tasers post from a few pages back). If anyone says they understand 100% of what the bible says and they know they are right they are wrong.
That belief in a literal 7 days(and the calculation to 6k years or whatever it is) was made popular by ONE man(and then aparently held to the rest of Christians). I believe in evolution and I believe in God, do some other Christians disagree with me? yes, do some agree with me? Absolutely. I am an old earth creationist. But again that is my view.
If someone believes that they are not a Christian.
Yeah, it ended rather quickly after that :lol:
Also, she got super angry when I read into her religion and knew more about it than she did. Fun stuff.
just one more odd question, sorry for being so interrogating:
Whats your opinion about the death sentence? Are you for it or against it?
So would romances in DA and ME be considered adultery?
Cant believe you guys are still on about this, JUST MOVE ON!
Oh, we stopped talking about Pat Robertson midway page 1. It's been more about general arguments concerning science, religion, etc.
Yea the arguing that's what I ment, stupidest thing ever
If someone believes that they are not a Christian. Also The Bible is open to interpretation, so yes it can change(reference to tasers post from a few pages back). If anyone says they understand 100% of what the bible says and they know they are right they are wrong.
That belief in a literal 7 days(and the calculation to 6k years or whatever it is) was made popular by ONE man(and then aparently held to the rest of Christians). I believe in evolution and I believe in God, do some other Christians disagree with me? yes, do some agree with me? Absolutely. I am an old earth creationist. But again that is my view.
Do you believe dinosaur bones were put on earth by god to test your faith?dat armor piercing question :DD
Do you believe dinosaur bones were put on earth by god to test your faith?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
I believe velociraptor Jesus was the son of T-rex, the one true God and the only path to Jurassic heaven.
The dinosaur bible proves it.
They committed mass extinction, so surely it had to be truthful enough to go extinct when told to!
The meek shall inherit the Earth....and at the time we were the meek!
The meek shall inherit the Earth....and at the time we were the meek!
Instantly distrust anyone who calls himself 'expert'.
Have a look at this:
From a movie called "God on Trial".
It not about religion its about faith and believing. I think EVERYONE believes in SOMETHING.http://sl4.org/wiki/TheSimpleTruth
"how can you say that your truth is better than ours?"
http://sl4.org/wiki/TheSimpleTruth
Today I found the time to watch the whole movie. And I must say it is a great piece and really a must for everyone who took interest in this thread.
Thanks Armpit-Sweat for the hint.
A very special movie, that made me believe in Samuel Jackson as an actor:
The Sunset Limited
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The plot is very simple - 2 men are talking about life, death and God. Nothing else.
That Tommy Lee character is pretty much me in few years time :)
It's obviously not so simple, since it's about 7000 words... No, thank you.
Today I found the time to watch the whole movie. And I must say it is a great piece and really a must for everyone who took interest in this thread.
Thanks Armpit-Sweat for the hint.
It's obviously not so simple, since it's about 7000 words... No, thank you.
I am glad you liked it :) If you managed God on Trial, you might also want to consider this: [sunset limited]
tl;dr Truth is not subjective.
religion is not the truth. its just one way to describe it. and a quite sickly one if it needs to state "IM THE ONLY TRUTH" if you ask me.What?
religion is not the truth. its just one way to describe it. and a quite sickly one if it needs to state "IM THE ONLY TRUTH" if you ask me.
How the hell is there supposed to be more than 1 "truth" to things. That's the point. Either something is true, or it isn't. That's why people who weren't indoctrinated as children or decide to convert after being in jail or being an alcoholic or something tend to not be religious. Because there is absolutely nothing that exists that points to any of it being "true." And you have to have a lack of respect to logic, facts, science, truth, self-determination, and a myriad of other intellectual things to actually try to peddle something that is completely unsubstantiated, as "truth."
Like a good argument I've heard involving a god is "can God create a boulder so heavy that even he couldn't lift it?" Troll question, but at least it uses logic to make a point (that infinite power is retarded)
Nothing of this sort really exists in a modern era defending religion. This thread is just more proof of that.
im not saying theres more than one truth - the only truth i believe in, is that we're alive. Religion tries to explain that and is sold as "THE truth" - and thats just wrong. Thats all i'm saying.You use the word "truth" very strangely. Try replacing it with "fact" or something and there'll be less confusion.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The problem with this is that religious ideas cannot be falsified by taking a measurement. Which makes them irrelevant in my eyes, but not in the eyes of billions of people, unfortunately.http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/
How the hell is there supposed to be more than 1 "truth" to things.
Schroedinger's Cat - theoretically the cat is both alive and dead up until it is observed, although the definition of observed is up for debate :D
Interestingly (and from my limited perspective) quantum mechanics in this respect seems very like religion to me, with multiple "interpretations" that we do not currently have the technology to prove (or disprove) and so various scientists "believe" in whichever interpretation best fits the purposes of their own research. I'm sure people with a better grasp on quantum mechanics will dispute this though :D
The cat is either alive or dead, observation doesn't change reality, just lets you update your map of it.
That's the impression most people get from the experiment, but in the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, some things that you don't know actually are in multiple states at the same time until you observe them. This because there is no other way than observation to know in what state they are. Radioactive decay like other quantum phenomena, is a truly random process. This means you cannot deduce something about the particle even if you know the state of the entire universe. It simply isn't linked to anything so the result is random. This is why observation is the only way to know and we may as well suppose those things don't really have a state until they are observed.Observation is the only way to know, yes. But the superposition is true only on a metaphysical and probabilistic level. Physical reality is different. Updating your map does not update the territory. Schrödinger proposed the thought experiment to show that it's ridiculous to apply quantum mechanical concepts (well, the standard/Copenhagen Interpretation, Many Worlds/Mangled Worlds still works) to macroscopic objects, like a cat.
Although your question is to Kafein, that's pretty much semantics, since no one can "know the state of the entire universe."
Unless it's a purely hypothetical fun question. But if you assume knowing the state of the universe = observing everything, then it follows that you've observed the particle in question, like you said. But if that's the assumption, then there's no question, is there? If you've observed it then you've observed it. I'm ASSuming Kafein means something else by "knowing the state of the universe."
For one, why would only a human eye count as an observer, and the cat itself doesn't count? Also with the standard interpretation we get a "Schrödinger's cat inside a box, inside a box, inside a box" scenario if, for example, there's someone else outside the room when you open the box. From their perspective, you found either a dead cat or a live cat, and until they walk in the room and see which one is true, and the wavefunction collapses. And from the perspective of someone in another room... and outside the building.. and outside the city... what's outside all of those boxes that's causing the wavefunction to collapse?
Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science CAT Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science Science
Checking back on this thread after some days
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The uncertainty is an individual thing, it's not the universe witnessing you specifically are trying to fuck with him and suddenly says "this particle will collapse its wavefunction !" when you observe it. The experiment can even be seen from the perspective of the device that detects radioactive decay. When it detects a gamma ray or whatever, its uncertainty about when the phenomenon actually happens dissappears, but yours does not.The experiment can indeed be seen from the perspective of the Geiger counter, which means it makes even less sense following the CI of quantum mechanics. Your view of the thought experiment is not really the standard one, or even the common non-standard one, but I won't say it's wrong because there's fuckloads of interpretations. The universe is not witnessing you doing something and deciding to fuck with you by collapsing the wavefunction when you witness it, but that's what happens (according to CI), and there is only one world so that means the cat is either alive or dead, not some kind of a superposition of both - the uncertainty exists only in the mind of those who don't yet know it. One explanation that subscribes to the CI of QM is that when millions or billions of particles combine to form a macroscopic object (cat), quantum phenomena essentially disappear, as they're all essentially observing each other and continually collapsing their each others' wavefunctions.
No, actually, the banana is the result of intelligent design. It was designed... by humans.
Here's a wild banana.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
With inedible seeds.
Ray Comfort's comeback to this fact was "well but God gave man the knowledge and ability to modify it so it could perfectly fit in his hand!"
If you really want to kill your braincells, you watch this.
If you really want to kill your braincells, you watch this.
Hilarious how both sides are flawed.
People in the field of Biology and studies saying weird shit and not actually tearing the skygod zealot apart, I'd consider letting him play his agressive indoctrination tactics is a flaw.
Bear in mind I did only watch like half of this thing, got the basic style well enough.