Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.
Comments
165,681 - 165,700 of 224,018 Comments Last updated 48 min ago

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172583
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.

My hypothesis is this:

God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
You're right.

It didn't take millions of years.

It took billions of years.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172584
Jul 20, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No, I can not. Nor can anyone else.
That's Robert Oppenheimer, no? He's a hero to me.
I think your hero died, Mac.

The wise man paves the road to ruin.

Appia teritur regina longarum viarum

The Long Walk:

http://readanybooks.net/horror/The_Long_Walk/...

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172585
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Givemeliberty wrote:
I would give you $100 if you could stump me. I must say up till now you have failed miserably in a theist vs atheist debate. You have been factually destroyed point by point.
Okay I will ask you this yet again and let's see of you can finally not cower away and actually answer it. I doubt it personally but let's see.
Take the forged words of Tacitus and Josephus on Jesus. We are to believe this Roman imperial and Jewish historian working for the Imperials would dare refer to him as the Christ or gush about him as in the Josephus forgery. What do you think the imperial Romans at that point in history would have done to them for writing such a thing? Let's just forget that as a devout Jew Josephus would never complimented a false messiah as Jesus would have been to him and Tacitus is even less likely due to his religious beliefs, but we'll forget these glaring issues for the moment. Do you honestly those imperial Romans would not have had them killed for daring to write and publish such a thing?
Those imperial Romans didn't take such matters lightly as anyone with a basic knowledge of their history would tell you.
Let's see if you answer... Forgive me for not holding my breath.
<quoted text>
First of all, you're making an assumption without any proof that the Tacitus or Josephus accounts of Jesus are forgeries. This just isn't true. If you have conclusive proof (not opinion) I'll need to see it for myself.

Tacitus mentions the report of the fire that burned much of Rome. This is a historical fact. He mentions that Nero wanted to shift the blame away from himself. So now we have two facts.

1) Rome experienced a large and destructive fire.
2) Nero was the reigning emperor at the time of the fire.

Now let's go a step further.

Nero characterizes the Christians of Rome as hated for their superstitious beliefs. Calling their beliefs "superstitious" is a sure sign that Tacitus himself regards their beliefs as superstitious. Tacitus is narrating in first person. Tacitus mentions Pontius Pilate as the Procurator whom sentenced Jesus to death. During Pilate's time, the title was "Prefect." Some skeptics say that this is the reason they suspect it's a forgery. What skeptics don't understand or refuse to accept (to maintain their skepticism) is that the title of Prefect and Procurator were both used the same way we might say "Cop" when referring to a Sheriff's deputy. It's still a law enforcement officer. In relation to Pilate, he was the governor of Judea regardless of whether or not the title of Procurator or Prefect was used. The function and authority was basically the same. Now moving forward, the Tacitus passage mentions that the superstition started in Judea. To confirm all of this, we have the Pilate Stone found in Palestine in the 1960s which indicates that Pilate was a real person. Tacitus couldn't have been making up the name. That brings us to the next point. The debate over Tacitus' use of the name "Chrestus" in place of Christ. Skeptics like to claim that these are two different names. Only in spelling. Christ is a Greek word which means "annointed one" and is a translation from the Hebrew word for "Messiah." Because Tacitus was a pagan who disregarded the early Christians as "superstitious" he was very naive of the translation. He simply made a mistake in his translation of the difference between names or titles. Thus, in his mind, Chrestus wasn't a title, but a name. It was a very simple mistake in the way he used the word. So here just in the Tacitus passage, we have facts:

1) There was a major fire in Rome during the reign of Nero.
2) Christians were in Rome during the reign of Nero.
3) The origins of Christianity are traced back to Judea.
4) Pontius Pilate was the Roman installed governor of Judea, confirmed by archeological discovery of the Pilate Stone.
5) Tacitus is obviously dubious of Christian claims because he calls them "superstitions".

To be continued in next post

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172586
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Take the forged words of Tacitus and Josephus on Jesus. We are to believe this Roman imperial and Jewish historian working for the Imperials would dare refer to him as the Christ or gush about him as in the Josephus forgery. What do you think the imperial Romans at that point in history would have done to them for writing such a thing?
The Romans didn't recognize the word Chrestus as a title, which is exactly what the Hebrew translation is. In Hebrew, it's "Messiah."
The Roman historian Tacitus simply made a mistake in the word usage. I covered this in the last post. Tacitus didn't "gush" about him either. In fact, Tacitus is dismissive of the claims surrounding Jesus. He refers to the resurrection as "superstitious" just like you do. In fact, he can't even bring himself to say "resurrection." Tacitus doesn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. Tacitus clearly says that Jesus was crucified. Tacitus uses the words "extreme penalty." Crucifixion was the most extreme penalty in use by the Romans. It was so hideous that civilized Romans (like Tacitus) referred to it as the "extreme penalty."

Next, I don't know where you get the idea that Romans would have executed Tacitus for writing about Jesus, but they wouldn't have. Tacitus was known for historical accuracy. Pliny the Younger was actually upset with Tacitus at one point for not adding political spin that would have been beneficial to Pliny. Tacitus was considered to be very thorough, and very honest. Tacitus reported historical facts accurately and honestly. Did you know that the majority of what we know about historical Imperial Rome comes from a single source? Do you know that source is Tacitus?
Givemeliberty wrote:
Let's just forget that as a devout Jew Josephus would never complimented a false messiah as Jesus would have been to him
Josephus never did believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, so you're correct about that. The original Josephus passage was tampered with, but not for purposes of deception. A scribe was correcting what he considered to be an incomplete historical account. That's what happens on Wikipedia, and is why Wikipedia isn't the best source for factual information. By modern academic standards that's a major error in historical integrity. Such a change wouldn't happen today without extensive consultation and peer review, but, back then, it was common practice. The Josephus passage, when stripped of the obvious interpolation, still indicates that a person named Jesus lived, that he was considered wise, that he was handed over to the Romans by Jewish authorities, and that he was crucified. The Romans would have never punished Josephus for saying this. The Romans allowed cultures in conquered territories to retain their histories and religious customs. It wasn't like the USSR of the 1950s where everything was censored.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Those imperial Romans didn't take such matters lightly as anyone with a basic knowledge of their history would tell you.
As anyone would tell me? Do you have a specific historical expert in mind? My "History of Western Civilization" professor from the secular college I attended would disagree with you.
Givemeliberty wrote:
Let's see if you answer... Forgive me for not holding my breath.
I'm glad to see you're still breathing. It's a good habit to have. Keep up the good work on that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172587
Jul 20, 2013
 
ignorance is bliss86 wrote:
<quoted text>
my picture is of a scientist wise byond his years can you prove god exsist?
He was also horribly wronged.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172588
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The Romans didn't recognize the word Chrestus as a title, which is exactly what the Hebrew translation is. In Hebrew, it's "Messiah."
The Roman historian Tacitus simply made a mistake in the word usage. I covered this in the last post. Tacitus didn't "gush" about him either. In fact, Tacitus is dismissive of the claims surrounding Jesus. He refers to the resurrection as "superstitious" just like you do. In fact, he can't even bring himself to say "resurrection." Tacitus doesn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. Tacitus clearly says that Jesus was crucified. Tacitus uses the words "extreme penalty." Crucifixion was the most extreme penalty in use by the Romans. It was so hideous that civilized Romans (like Tacitus) referred to it as the "extreme penalty."
Would Tacitus have investigated the Judean records to determine whether there was such a crucifixion, or would he have simply related the *beliefs* of the Christians? Given the difficulties of travel during the time, I find it much more likely that he would have related the beliefs of the Christians, just like he did for other cults he mentioned.
Next, I don't know where you get the idea that Romans would have executed Tacitus for writing about Jesus, but they wouldn't have. Tacitus was known for historical accuracy. Pliny the Younger was actually upset with Tacitus at one point for not adding political spin that would have been beneficial to Pliny. Tacitus was considered to be very thorough, and very honest. Tacitus reported historical facts accurately and honestly. Did you know that the majority of what we know about historical Imperial Rome comes from a single source? Do you know that source is Tacitus?
Seutonius is also a very good source. I assume you are limiting this claim to *early* imperial Rome, as Tacitus didn't get to write about the Antonines.
Josephus never did believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, so you're correct about that. The original Josephus passage was tampered with, but not for purposes of deception. A scribe was correcting what he considered to be an incomplete historical account. That's what happens on Wikipedia, and is why Wikipedia isn't the best source for factual information. By modern academic standards that's a major error in historical integrity. Such a change wouldn't happen today without extensive consultation and peer review, but, back then, it was common practice. The Josephus passage, when stripped of the obvious interpolation, still indicates that a person named Jesus lived, that he was considered wise, that he was handed over to the Romans by Jewish authorities, and that he was crucified. The Romans would have never punished Josephus for saying this. The Romans allowed cultures in conquered territories to retain their histories and religious customs. It wasn't like the USSR of the 1950s where everything was censored.
You are correct that the ROman authorities would not have punished Tacitus or Josephus for saying these things. But you also have to admit that both Tacitus and Josephus were writing for a primarily Roman audience.

And let's suppose that Jesus did exist and was crucified as a rabble rouser. Would that substantiate the other stories about him? How long does a legend take to go from 'wise man' to 'miracle worker' to 'deity'. About 300 years in a superstitious culture?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172589
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The nerve - using a guy's own words when quoting him.
Unlike you liberals (yes, shit-for-brains, you are a liberal) who lie about what people say.
The default position for dealing with liberals like you, especially devoted materialists, like you, is to assume you are lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote mining isn't the same as quoting. It is the same as quoting out of context and with no understanding.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172590
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
What the investigators want to see are the differences. They separate these differences until they are left with only the similarities. This can also be done with the canonical gospels.
Do you claim that the writers of the Gospels were separated enough that their stories are independent witnesses? And that they wrote soon enough for their memories not to be remolded through re-telling?
As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too. In ancient Judea,(as well as other cultures) there were people who had the job of memorizing and passing along oral traditions. They were known as "Tradents." These tradents used creeds and other mnemonic methods to aid in memorizing. Tradents would often perform their duties in a temple setting, or popular gathering place. Tradents could use different techniques to tell the story, but they weren't allowed to distort or embellish so that it changed the truth of the events they were talking or singing about.
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:
1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.
2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.
Are you claiming that such professional memorizers would have spent time with the claimed miracles of a condemned criminal? Or are you claiming the Christians had their own Tradents? Given the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians (who would have had any oral tradition) and the fact that Paul ultimately won that fight, and given that most of the growth of Christianity was outside of Judea where the Tradents were working, why would you give any credence to the tradition *among the Roman believers*? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Tradents?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172591
Jul 20, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
I notice no answer whatsoever as to why the gospels do not match up just an off topic rant.
The fact that they differ so wildly shatters your 10 so called 10 tests that you just made up. But for fun..
1: Certainly not and even Christian apologetics will admit this.
2: Even Christian apologetics admit the gospels are not meant to be like a history lesson. Wow you are really bad at this. Let's continue shall we? Lol!
3: Certainly not. The Greeks who penned the gospels came decades later and were not eye witnesses to the events.
4: The bias in the gospels are naturally very high and I am shocked even you would be so ignorant as to claim otherwise.
5: The writers were not eye witnesses so writing something that sounds like an eye witness is irrelevant and any historian would agree.
6: No we don't see any such humility in the gospels and you will need to show a source for this claim.
7: Lmfao absolutely not the gospels contradict themselves wildly and can't even quote the Torah correctly.
8: Subject completely to personal opinion, not a tool used by historians. You have been caught red handed lying and you know it.
9: We can see how the gospel stories are blatantly stolen from previous religions. At times damn near word for word.
10: Nope not in the slightest.
Then you claim that the gospels are able to answer properly for each of these 10? I will need to see sources and evidence for your claim. I doubt you will be able to as you just made it up but good luck.
And as I said before this merely is you saying.. Wow I believe the gospels! It I'm no way shape or form comes close to answering my question about why the gospels do not match up. I thought you were going to answer that question.... No surprise you avoided it and desperately tried to change the subject.
Here let me hold your hand half wit and try to guide you. Finish this statement. The reason the gospels don't match up is because.......
<quoted text>
Straw man fallacy. I was not attempting to answer your question as of yet. I'm laying the groundwork to answer it. There's a difference.
The historical reliability tests I listed aren't something I made up. I wish I could take credit for them, but I was shocked to learn they existed too. So, using these ten tests, I'll be glad to enter into civilized conversation with you as I do with Quantum Bob, Albtraum, and Polymath. Of course that means I'll expect civilized answers in return. Let me know when you're ready to:

1) Be civilized.
2) Enter into dialogue about the 10 tests of historical reliability and how they can be applied to the gospel accounts.

In the meantime, here's a few websites for your consideration. It would be beneficial if you were to read them BEFORE entering into dialogue with me. That way we can both approach the subject with a factual reference to consult as needed.

http://staff.kings.edu/bapavlac/evalsources.h...

https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/cour...

http://www.nps.gov/history/Nr/twhp/Prof_Dev_P...

Although you'll notice that these web sites don't use the same formatting as I did in my list, the concepts are basically the same.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172592
Jul 20, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
Do you claim that the writers of the Gospels were separated enough that their stories are independent witnesses? And that they wrote soon enough for their memories not to be remolded through re-telling?
Re-telling is the essence of oral tradition. Oral tradition was the standard method of communicating historical events in ancient cultures where literacy was the exception rather than the rule. And, oral tradition was strictly monitored so that embellishment was virtually eliminated. That's not to say that there was no embellishment at all, but if there was, it was used for performance value and not to deceive. The tradent's story had to keep the audience's attention without distorting the facts.

To answer your second question, yes. Let's refer to the Gospel According to Mark for an example of why my answer is yes. In the crucifixion narrative, Mark records one of the things that Jesus says:

"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani" which means, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me." This is told in Mark 15:34

There are reasons why this is important Polymath. First of all, notice that Mark is actually translating from one language to another. If Mark is writing in Greek, then obviously he's translating a quote from another language. So what language is this?
In first century Palestine, Aramaic was the primary language spoken by devout Jews. These words of Jesus are in Aramaic. To me, an obvious question is why would Mark bother to write the phrase in Aramaic and then translate it? The most plausible reason is that Mark is quoting from someone's memory. But who's memory? And why is it a memory? Well we have supporting attestation that it's the account of Peter. And it's a memory for a very good reason.

Psychologists have long understood that traumatic memories are much more likely to be remembered accurately. What could be more traumatic than seeing your best friend killed in such a gruesome manner as crucifixion? Of course, if you want to get into the Judaic context of why Jesus said what he did, which is theological in nature, I'll be glad to do so.
polymath257 wrote:
Are you claiming that such professional memorizers would have spent time with the claimed miracles of a condemned criminal? Or are you claiming the Christians had their own Tradents?
Yes, the Christians had their own tradents, but this was common practice for each community or sub-group to have their own tradents, and that these tradents would all basically follow the same protocol when repeating oral histories.
polymath257 wrote:
Given the conflict between Paul and the Jewish Christians (who would have had any oral tradition) and the fact that Paul ultimately won that fight,
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you could expand on it a little more, it would be helpful to our conversation.
polymath257 wrote:
and given that most of the growth of Christianity was outside of Judea where the Tradents were working, why would you give any credence to the tradition *among the Roman believers*? Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Tradents?
The earliest growth of Christianity was within Judea, and specifically in Jerusalem. Evangelism was a style of oral tradition that actually has it's roots in Roman traditions. So it wasn't an unusual concept within Rome. And yes we could say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all tradents. They used the evangelistic style that was so common within the Roman empire.

I'd like to take the time to thank you for your civility and scholarship. Although we have differing conclusions concerning reality, you're fun to dialogue with, as is Quantum Bob. Maybe you could help others learn the finer points of civil dialogue?:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172593
Jul 20, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
Now why am I not at all surprised by your last point...

:)

Out-of-contextual snippets of what people say, is one if the hallmarks of "how to lie by telling the truth"....

... thank you, by the way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172594
Jul 20, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lewontin was a top notch biologist. he worked with Stephen Gould on the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Unfortunately, he has been extensively quote-mined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
A quick skimming of that did not reveal anything relating to a criticism of scientific methods vis a vis supernatural woo.

Hardly surprising...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172595
Jul 20, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh ya the bible for being lol divine is sure chock full of errors!
<quoted text>
Yes.

Apparently the standard of behavior for these True Believerô is quite low, when it comes to their gods of choice.

I mean... really?

For me? I expect nothing less than **godly** behavior from ... a god.

They accept stuff that would not pass muster in a 6th grade English essay class....!!

Strictly amateur stuff, the bible-- if it was inspired?

Well... there is far more inspiration in one showing of American Idol, than you **ever** see contained within the bible.

Again?

Not godly at all. Much too... human.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172596
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll have to aggressively counter this one Bob. You're trying to mix two different concepts to come up with a conclusion that fits your personal beliefs. At an accident scene, there will be conflicting accounts. But what the investigators look for is the core. The incidental or peripheral details actually ADD credibility to the account. And to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, I've been a licensed private investigator. I've investigated everything from the usual extra-marital affairs, to insurance scams, to wrongful death claims. One thing I can tell you for sure is that eye-witness testimony is credible, and just because people give some conflicting accounts, doesn't mean there is no central truth to the event.
I never disputed that there wasn't an event in reality. What I pointed out? Is that human perception is **always** biased.

And that is for first-person experience-- 3rd or 4th person experiences are **always** distorted. Always.

No.

Matter.

What.

And that is **all** you have in your bible: 3rd ***generation** accounts (or more). Nothing that is **original**, first-person material.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172597
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
As for your charge that oral tradition can't work, I have to debunk that too.
You have no possible way to debunk my statement: oral tradition CAN NOT WORK, without each iteration editing and changing the "tradition" to suit it's agenda (whatever that may be).

Why?

Because if you had **written** material alongside the "oral" one?

Well... it's not **oral** any more is it? They would have had **written** material to keep them on track.

So no.

You can argue with technique all you like-- but it does NOT change basic human nature.

We humans are **biased** in what we do.

Always.

Which is why **oral** traditions DO NOT WORK to preserve accuracy.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172598
Jul 20, 2013
 
Roman Apologist wrote:
If they did, other tradents and even community members would step in and correct the tradent. Tradents very seldom passed on oral tradition in one-on-one settings. There were two reasons for this:
1) Public Transparency- This was the primary reason. To prevent distortions by passing on oral histories in front of as many people as possible, many of whom were also witnesses to events.
2) To avoid fatigue from having to repeat the story too many times in smaller group settings.
That's nice. Still does not work-- over each generation the "tradition" is EDITED to fit the biases of what is currently popular within the culture.

ALWAYS.

You are being naive here, if you think that doesn't happen.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172599
Jul 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Bob. And don't sell yourself short. You write some pretty good stuff too. We can disagree passionately but respectfully. Polymath is incredibly talented in the technicalities of science. I'm really not anti-science. I just think that the secular world gives it more weight than it merits. You probably think I give theology more weight than it merits, and that's fine by me. It forces each of us to think about why we believe what we do. I don't think you're delusional. I just don't think you've discovered the truth yet. I have a feeling that's a mutual sentiment.:)
What is "truth"?

:D

A classic philosophical question that has buggered people for thousands of years and counting.

Descartes thought that only by inner reflection, could real "truth" be had. As it turns out, he was wrong about that one.

The fact is,**all** people bring to the table their personal biases. It's the nature of the how the human brain processes information.

But it wasn't until people figured **that** out, that they begin to experiment with methods that deliberately tried to **eliminate** the human factor, in discovery of The Truth.

From those centuries-long experimental methods, we humans finally discovered methods that, as much as is possible, do eliminate the human-bias factor: we came to call that The Scientific Method.

And it Just Works. Not perfectly. Not all-encompassing either.

But, just going by the results? It Just Works.

This very computer exists,**only** because of The Scientific Method.

Once humans figured out this method of looking for The Truth? Progress in Understanding of the Universe began to grow by exponential rates.

Prior to The Scientific Method? Progress was pretty much stagnant.

Don't take **my** word for it-- look to history, you'll see my points are valid.

..........

Bottom line: results.

The Scientific Method gets **results**.

Nothing else--**especially** theology-- has come even close to that record.

Nothing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172600
Jul 20, 2013
 
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich. C'est la vie.
I do live in a University Town down in the bootheel and close to the Big Muddy, so the atmosphere is actually a little better than other locales I could easily think of. The younger people here bring in some new ideas and a spark of hope to offset the redneck woes;0)
:)

That close to the ocean--even if it's "only" the Gulf? I do envy you a bit. I always enjoyed the times I spent on the coast.

But, having never lived there, I never experienced the worst that a coastal home can offer-- never been in a hurricane (for example).

That I do **not** envy you in the least-- I've been in tornadoes, which are sort of like tiny, baby-brother ant-versions of hurricanes.

You can actually avoid being in a tornado, if you keep your wits about you.

A hurricane hits...**everything** and **everyone** in it's path...!!

:D

Even still, I'd so enjoy spending time on the beach-- I always loved those times as a child.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172602
Jul 20, 2013
 
I_see_you wrote:
I saw a video clip about a pipe loaded with marijuana that was left in a happy meal at a McDonald's somewhere. I can't remember where they were located....3 employees were apparently goofing off at work and put there pipe into a happy meal....These are the people that "AIE" is using to help support his rantings lol... Don't get me wrong...smoke all you want, but do it at home...not at work. Of course the employees at the McDonald's that "AIE" has stationed himself to borrow the wi-fi for a crusade against atheism, obviously don't pay too much attention to their jobs either.
Keep in mind, that A.I.E is a notorious liar.

As such,**nothing** he writes can be taken as factual-- at all.

The **real** story is that he likely had begged/borrowed/or stole some pocket-change from somewhere. Maybe begging at a traffic corner.

And he took his change to McDees' for a cuppa their horrid, burnt "coffee". So he could freeload on their WiFi on his stolen laptop.

Likely the only interaction he had with the store's employees, was when (after 3 hours of coffee refills) he was asked to leave...

... no doubt there was much shouting involved, him claiming to be "their best customer" and "I'm on a mission from god" and other nonsense.

As he was being escorted out the door by two burly cops? He likely shouted something about "see? you atheists are oppressing me!"

And he took the smirks on the faces of the McDee's employees as "agreement"....

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172603
Jul 20, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever you think you have it all figured out, it is a good time to stop and think things over again.
Always good advice.

Always.

:D

We humans are apt to get too comfortable in our personal biases after all...

... must be that "inner truth" that Descartes wrote of.

<laughing>

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

431 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min BenAdam 720,182
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 4 min Naveen kumar 4,476
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 5 min Remnant of 144000 38,440
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 8 min EdmondWA 93,657
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min RoSesz 532,421
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 10 min Classic 1,712
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 22 min Rehan 393
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 31 min Le_le 172,263
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Dr_Zorderz 256,380
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 6 hr John 53
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••