-
Welcome to ForumKorner!
Join today and become a part of the community.
The Christian God
- Thread starter Epicc
- Start date
woah woah you calm your ass down. My bad my little brain can't understand your intellectual posts.
OK let's read this shit again.
"Not really, they would still have to commit incest. Meaning that we are all committing incest and we look NOTHING like the original humans. The theory of Adam and Eve is pure nonsense."
OK that's what you said and this is how I interpreted it. You are claiming that we should resemble the first humans because we are the product of offspring and I said that there were so many mixtures between family it would be odd if we resembled ADAM. amirite? what am I missing?
OK let's read this shit again.
"Not really, they would still have to commit incest. Meaning that we are all committing incest and we look NOTHING like the original humans. The theory of Adam and Eve is pure nonsense."
OK that's what you said and this is how I interpreted it. You are claiming that we should resemble the first humans because we are the product of offspring and I said that there were so many mixtures between family it would be odd if we resembled ADAM. amirite? what am I missing?
Not at all. You're thinking of differences between parents and offspring. You see, when incest occurs huge mutations happen, both physical and mental. This means that early humans, according to the Bible (which I believe is a work of fiction), would have been WAY smarter and, in our eyes, better looking.legokiba213 said:
OK well now I'm confused you say that when incest occurs mutations happen but then you said people in the bible would be prettier in our eyes?? Wouldn't it be the opposite because in the beginning they committed incest?
Well I'm sorry I don't understand.
I don't believe in God or Adam and Eve, the entire concept of religion and people dedicating there life's to an all knowing being seem's to be a bit extreme and far fetched to me. Especially when the majority of the claims by extremist religious groups (referring to the people that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, etc) can be disproved by general science such as carbon dating. It's stupid but I do respect other people's opinions, as long as they don't attempt to force them upon me.
krazedkat said:
Well, this is arguable, look at the Royalty throughout the ages. These families believed that the only way to keep their "true blood" was to mary within the family and reproduce (aka incest). They would do this for generations and generations. So wouldn't it show in history that some of these kings and queens were of the most ugly "mutations" you've ever seen?
When a species is about to go extinct they take a male and a female and have them reproduce and those offspring reproduce with each other to try and save the species. Yet you don't see any major mutations or mental differences.
And no one ever claimed what they looked like to be honest, I don't think the Bible ever says (the bible wasn't written by God, it was written by men).
Fishâ„¢ said:
If believing in God is insane, then believing in science is just absurd (IMHO). Yes, some of it makes sense, but other things are just straight up retarded. The big bang theory? (which, by the way, isn't the main accepted way the universe came to be). If you believe that a "big bang" came out of no where and created the universe, why can't I believe that God did the same? It takes about the same belief in both directions.
I'm not trying to force my opinion or God down anyones throat, but for someone to say "God is retarded because science says this" is complete absurdity. My religion is being proven every day(hey even scientist say Jesus existed), but science is constantly being changed and proven wrong, to be filled with new theories that won't last forever.
God stays the same, science? Not so much lol
You don't believe in science moron -.- fucking hell I hate your kind. We "believe" what has the most evidence to support it, God has no such evidence -.-. Science does not claim that Jesus existed, and to claim such is utter stupidity. We understand some scientists are too fucking stupid to let go of their belief in God and use the scientific method, we know that, but that proves NOTHING. Science is constantly updated due to new facts found, that makes it more accurate. Your god? Your bible? Don't change, even if new evidence is presented, this is called DOGMA, look it up. Science cannot be proven wrong, only proven incorrect on one thing, and, at that point, it will rush to update.xBrad said:
As to what you said to me:
Elizabeth I: barely any breasts, dull faced
Elizabeth's brother: died of a rare disease caused by a birth defect
Did I fucking claim the bible said ANYTHING about their looks? No, learn to fucking read you moron. 6000 years of inbreeding WOULD cause large genetic defects UNLESS they started to breed with their cousins right away and then kept breeding with relatives further away from them (less related).
If you think you know anything about science you are sadly mistaken if you can't grasp the simple concept that it changes, it changes because it wants to be right. Your book, it doesn't, it just CLAIMS to be right, that's not even near the same. Fuck you very much sir.
krazedkat said:
I love people like you, you think cussing is such an effective way of proving you're more dominative. I'm sorry people like you can't have a decent debate because you let your emotions get the best of you. Grow up, learn some manners, then come have discussion with the grown-ups of the world.
But yes, you as non-believers (whatever you may be) believe what some guy tells. Someone has an idea, "proves" it's legit through "experiments", and it's believed. That's science.
There is no reason for the Bible or Christians to change to "new evidence" as it doesn't change our beliefs... "The moon is moving away from the earth it is now .01 mm further this year" That has no affect on my religion.
Wrong and incorrect are the same thing...look up the definition.
Wrong: incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth
Incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "the report in the paper is wrong"
krazedkat said:
krazedkat said:
Err, I feel contradiction here. I think you should go back and read what you wrote, cause you definitely said "according to the Bible...better looking". That would count.
I actually have taken college level courses in astronomy, geology, and other sciences. So, to claim that I know nothing of science is wrong/incorrect (whichever you choose). I've talked to and learned from people 1000x more knowledgeable then you in both science and atheism. It's not my fault 40% of scientist believe in God.
Christianity doesn't have to be changed, because there is nothing proving it otherwise. Science is always changing because it is always being proved incorrectly or wrongly.
IMO:
Christianity explains what is, science tries explains how it works.
Next post can we take out the cussing and keep it to a more mature level of conversation? I'm glad you use correct grammar for the most part, but you could improve the quality of your post.
I think cussing is a good way to get my anger out, actually. Read the scientific method and come back. Okay thanks 
. Also: you lack an understanding of sentence structure, great. If you didn't notice there was "in our eyes" before "better looking", just a thought man, get a book and read a bit maybe... I just used incorrect to mix up the word choice a bit, not because I thought there was a different definition, rather than reading one word, read my whole sentences. You can't be knowledgeable in atheism, it's not a belief system. All you need to know about atheism: "We don't belief in a deity." Tada, that's it, that's all. "There is no reason for the Bible or Christians to change to "new evidence" as it doesn't change our beliefs... "The moon is moving away from the earth it is now .01 mm further this year" That has no affect on my religion." - are you to tell me that you think the world is a circle? Really? You are very stupid sir, very stupid.
. Also: you lack an understanding of sentence structure, great. If you didn't notice there was "in our eyes" before "better looking", just a thought man, get a book and read a bit maybe... I just used incorrect to mix up the word choice a bit, not because I thought there was a different definition, rather than reading one word, read my whole sentences. You can't be knowledgeable in atheism, it's not a belief system. All you need to know about atheism: "We don't belief in a deity." Tada, that's it, that's all. "There is no reason for the Bible or Christians to change to "new evidence" as it doesn't change our beliefs... "The moon is moving away from the earth it is now .01 mm further this year" That has no affect on my religion." - are you to tell me that you think the world is a circle? Really? You are very stupid sir, very stupid.No, I don't lack a sense of sentence structure...
And regardless of if it's in our eyes, your dog's eyes, or barney's eyes. You said "according to the Bible".
So it can't be wrong, but can be proven wrong? I guess it depends on how you use "science". As the entire idea, or as certain subjects and theories. Owell.
Yeah, I didn't know how to word that one. A lot of atheist spend their time trying to disprove a deity, and I've met a ton who are very knowledgeable about such counter-beliefs. So to me I see it as a "counter-belief" belief, if that makes sense?
And I never claimed the earth was a circle? Nor did the Bible? I think you're smoking, cause a circle is a 2 dimensional object. The earth is not a sphere either.
And regardless of if it's in our eyes, your dog's eyes, or barney's eyes. You said "according to the Bible".
So it can't be wrong, but can be proven wrong? I guess it depends on how you use "science". As the entire idea, or as certain subjects and theories. Owell.
Yeah, I didn't know how to word that one. A lot of atheist spend their time trying to disprove a deity, and I've met a ton who are very knowledgeable about such counter-beliefs. So to me I see it as a "counter-belief" belief, if that makes sense?
And I never claimed the earth was a circle? Nor did the Bible? I think you're smoking, cause a circle is a 2 dimensional object. The earth is not a sphere either.
According to the bible pertains only to that which was said before it (notice , ,), it therefore means that early humans according to the bible.
Atheism is simply though a lack of belief. If one believes that no god exists that is a personal belief, not that of all atheists.
The bible actually does, it claims it is round (circular). The earth is an obglate (sp? or wrong word) sphere. It is somewhat pulled out like so: () but not that much.
Atheism is simply though a lack of belief. If one believes that no god exists that is a personal belief, not that of all atheists.
The bible actually does, it claims it is round (circular). The earth is an obglate (sp? or wrong word) sphere. It is somewhat pulled out like so: () but not that much.
I think we could both use a few more ,,,,, to make our statements a little more confusing
Okay, but wouldn't a personal belief, still be a belief? (just saying lol)
Round (as a shape): "a shape that is curved and without sharp angles." Yes that includes a circle, but that could also means a sphere, or any shape that is curved without sharp angles.
It's not (), it's wider then it is tall, but if you put it in aspect of it's orbit it is tilted anyway.
Okay, but wouldn't a personal belief, still be a belief? (just saying lol)
Round (as a shape): "a shape that is curved and without sharp angles." Yes that includes a circle, but that could also means a sphere, or any shape that is curved without sharp angles.
It's not (), it's wider then it is tall, but if you put it in aspect of it's orbit it is tilted anyway.
A belief, sure, but not of atheism itself, but rather of singular people.
I know it's not exactly like that, that was just all I could do with ascii.
Anyways, I used to be a Jew so I read the OT in Hebrew, it says that it is "circular" or "round", it's a difficult word to translate.
I know it's not exactly like that, that was just all I could do with ascii
.Anyways, I used to be a Jew so I read the OT in Hebrew, it says that it is "circular" or "round", it's a difficult word to translate.
Yes, it is difficult to make an earth in ascii, hell scientist can't even figure out how to earth became ;P
This is interesting, didn't know this.
But here's my question, let's get away from argument, what do you believe happens after death? and what do you believe is the purpose of life? (if any)
This is interesting, didn't know this.
So really, atheism can be included as part of a religion/spiritual belief system? Not literally included, but in a metamorphic sense?
But here's my question, let's get away from argument, what do you believe happens after death? and what do you believe is the purpose of life? (if any)
There are budhist atheists... As there is no actual budhist god.
Death: blackness, nothingness, but there is the possibility of an afterlife.
Purpose: none, we make our own. Mine is to reproduce and advance our knowledge.
Death: blackness, nothingness, but there is the possibility of an afterlife.
Purpose: none, we make our own. Mine is to reproduce and advance our knowledge.
@#2 - I think I read somewhere that Adam and Eve ended up having around 40 something kids.
Featured
-
Selling HeavyDDOS | BOTNET SERVICE | STRONGEST BOTNET ON THE MARTKET- Started by heavybotnet
- Replies: 0
Share this page
