Bill O'Reilly...tell me you can do better than this... you can't be this stupid...

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by cartune

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

How did God get there?

How did nothing get there? 

It's more worthwhile to investigate how we came from nothing than where GOD came from. Especially if you approach it with the idea that everything doesn't need to have a creator and somethings can simply always have been there. Adding on the concept of GOD is completely unnecessary. Any theist with the stance that GOD did it are not actively investigating where such a complex intelligent being originated from. They simply say GOD did it, claim he's superior and incomprehensible so we should be satisfied with such a piss poor answer. If you suppose everything came from something/has a creator it is your task to continually provide the creator's creator and so and so forth, infinitely regressing.

Like I said, religion makes a virtue out of NOT THINKING.

 

[dame theory]

Just a bunch of adults scared to die. 

 

[dame theory]

Just a bunch of adults scared to die. 

 

[breakyaneck3000]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Just a bunch of adults scared to die.�

 

[breakyaneck3000]

Originally Posted by Dame Theory

Just a bunch of adults scared to die.�

 

[|A-Man|]

Such circular reasoning from that first guy. Talking about souls. Never had evidence for that either.

The other guy with the blue tie reminded me of the Freakonomics movie I just watched. Religion for many in a nut shell is simply based off incentives similar to egoism and is basically selfishness. Those people follow w/e religion and act good because they want a reward. Rationally, many just aren't satisfied with being good moral ppl for the sake of each other and living in harmony now especially because of all the hardships and horrible things in life. Tell them there's a kingdom of peace and they have a reason to do it which is sad.

 

[|A-Man|]

Such circular reasoning from that first guy. Talking about souls. Never had evidence for that either.

The other guy with the blue tie reminded me of the Freakonomics movie I just watched. Religion for many in a nut shell is simply based off incentives similar to egoism and is basically selfishness. Those people follow w/e religion and act good because they want a reward. Rationally, many just aren't satisfied with being good moral ppl for the sake of each other and living in harmony now especially because of all the hardships and horrible things in life. Tell them there's a kingdom of peace and they have a reason to do it which is sad.

 

[megachamploo]

Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...

just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.

This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.

A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.

 

[megachamploo]

Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...

just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.

This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.

A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...

just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.

This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.

A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.

....
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.

One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.

The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.

Can't be both.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...

just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.

This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.

A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.

....
It clearly does, if my understanding of the creation story is accurate.

One states that humans, in their current form, were put on earth by God.

The other states that humans are the result of billions of years of natural selection, starting as relatively simple, single-celled organisms.

Can't be both.

 

[jmadidas2001]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...

just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.

This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.

A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.

Magachamploo meet Richard Dawkins...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

JM

 

[jmadidas2001]

Originally Posted by megachamploo

Don't really have a stance in this discussion, but...

just wondering, do any of you guys actually read scientific publications? or does everything that shapes your perspectives come from something posted online that was digested by somebody else? This is just my own experience, but I have yet to meet a religious individual who would deny the merits of scientific theory. The majority of people in my eeb class are christian (ironic). People in these arguments tend to dwell on the idea that a person with a faith = denying all academia. As people of science, I think we all know that things aren't simply as black and white as these discussions seem to portray. A lot of you guys are more absolute in your opinions than that of the evidence that you bring forth. that isn't very scientific. I believe in evolution, it has a lot of evidence and support from different concentrations in biology. but I have never thought of evolution as a means of disproving creationism, that's a bit of a leap. I believe that it tips the scale in favor of one over the other, but in no way is anything certain. My evolution textbook does not say that birds evolved from reptiles. It can only say that there is much evidence that suggests that birds evolved from reptiles. I have never, while reading an evolution textbook or archived article, thought "oh, this disproves everything that has ever been said for religion, ever." I don't know anybody that's made a weak connection like that. That kind of logic has never been encouraged in any science class I've taken. that's foolish. To be able to equate the supporting evidence of evolution to the absolute disproving of anything else isn't really scientific at all.

This is more of an atheist debate than a science debate and it's hardly objective.

A lot of you guys seriously think you're scientists and and super logical and stuff. stop it.

Magachamploo meet Richard Dawkins...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

JM

 

[dame theory]

Christians can be wonderful scientists. I was pre-med in school and sat in class with many of them...however it was painful taking an anthropology class with this one girl only to find out at the end of it that she STILL didn't believe in evolution... chick had damn near a 4.0. Its not about how hard they worked in school or how much they knew. Its about the reluctance to balance competing notions. Whenever something challenges what they know the 4-year old breaks out and they get defensive.

 

[dame theory]

Christians can be wonderful scientists. I was pre-med in school and sat in class with many of them...however it was painful taking an anthropology class with this one girl only to find out at the end of it that she STILL didn't believe in evolution... chick had damn near a 4.0. Its not about how hard they worked in school or how much they knew. Its about the reluctance to balance competing notions. Whenever something challenges what they know the 4-year old breaks out and they get defensive.

 

[djprestige21]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

"Stupid" 
Hawking - Oxford

Behe - Penn

O'reilly - Harvard

Dame Theory - ? 

The point is, none of these people are "stupid." Differing opinions on the origin of the universe, earth, species... do not make a person stupid, but rather, differing in their opinions. 

Got em'

 

[djprestige21]

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

"Stupid" 
Hawking - Oxford

Behe - Penn

O'reilly - Harvard

Dame Theory - ? 

The point is, none of these people are "stupid." Differing opinions on the origin of the universe, earth, species... do not make a person stupid, but rather, differing in their opinions. 

Got em'

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DJprestige21

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

"Stupid" 
Hawking - Oxford

Behe - Penn

O'reilly - Harvard

Dame Theory - ? 

The point is, none of these people are "stupid." Differing opinions on the origin of the universe, earth, species... do not make a person stupid, but rather, differing in their opinions. 

Got em'

I haven't written a book and I'm a 22 year old male trying to get the letters M.D. after my name. Miss me with the credential talk. I've done more research on these topics than you probably could have fathomed so for you to suggest that and for the other lame to co-sign that is asinine. What have you earned to even READ the works of these people? If you place such an entry level of respect on the ideas put forth by these people, surely you must yourself think there is a barrier to exposing yourself to the material. What are you REALLY saying with this? 
You can't look at religion and not think the concept is stupid. If you want to argue, lets go. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DJprestige21

Originally Posted by Bearcat23

"Stupid" 
Hawking - Oxford

Behe - Penn

O'reilly - Harvard

Dame Theory - ? 

The point is, none of these people are "stupid." Differing opinions on the origin of the universe, earth, species... do not make a person stupid, but rather, differing in their opinions. 

Got em'

I haven't written a book and I'm a 22 year old male trying to get the letters M.D. after my name. Miss me with the credential talk. I've done more research on these topics than you probably could have fathomed so for you to suggest that and for the other lame to co-sign that is asinine. What have you earned to even READ the works of these people? If you place such an entry level of respect on the ideas put forth by these people, surely you must yourself think there is a barrier to exposing yourself to the material. What are you REALLY saying with this? 
You can't look at religion and not think the concept is stupid. If you want to argue, lets go. 

 

[ruxxx]

A LOT of intellectual Ether in this thread.

 

[ruxxx]

A LOT of intellectual Ether in this thread.

 

[king x riece]

 

[king x riece]

 

[ecruteakcityboy]

He's mad

 

[ecruteakcityboy]

He's mad