Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 31

 

2011-06-20 06:53:16
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7035|Moscow, Russia

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:


I have, and now you know why I have no faith. Also what Obama has done in 2 years has affected me to a greater extent than what Christians did 1000 years ago. How bout you?
read on. religion haven't changed at all.
ya don't think? Wow, I didn't know the church was as influential in politics as it was in the past. I didn't know the church retained most of its power over govt. do tell.
i was not speaking about religious organizations and influence those had in the past and today, i was talking about religion itself. and yes, it is as ready and suitable to be used as an information manipulation tool as it was in the past.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-20 07:12:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Your last two replies in this thread almost contradict entirely.
no they don't. I do not think Obama's actions are faith based. You all are the ones that put so much emphasis in faith regarding a politician, not me. Obama is a man of faith, and must believe God has his hand in everything where is your outrage?

lowing wrote:

I do not think Obama's actions are faith based.
I guess you missed the key word.. Where is YOUR outrage. Personally I am not afraid of Obama for his faith.  I am afraid of him for his beliefs regarding politics and society. You are the ones that are hung up on a persons faith not me. Well only Palin's faith apparently

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-20 07:27:12)

2011-06-20 07:14:09
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:


read on. religion haven't changed at all.
ya don't think? Wow, I didn't know the church was as influential in politics as it was in the past. I didn't know the church retained most of its power over govt. do tell.
i was not speaking about religious organizations and influence those had in the past and today, i was talking about religion itself. and yes, it is as ready and suitable to be used as an information manipulation tool as it was in the past.
not really, since science and common sense seems to be the prevailing winds today. Look at this board, it is ready to hang Palin for her opinion regarding faith, not embrace her.
2011-06-20 07:28:47
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6934|Canberra, AUS
Creationism has little to do with being religious, it has everything to do with being a twit.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-06-20 07:29:44
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5496|Cleveland, Ohio
i think im gonna vote for palin just because i know it will piss people off.
2011-06-20 08:45:16
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7035|Moscow, Russia

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

ya don't think? Wow, I didn't know the church was as influential in politics as it was in the past. I didn't know the church retained most of its power over govt. do tell.
i was not speaking about religious organizations and influence those had in the past and today, i was talking about religion itself. and yes, it is as ready and suitable to be used as an information manipulation tool as it was in the past.
not really, since science and common sense seems to be the prevailing winds today.
science, religion, common sense - in politics these are just tools to be used when situation at hand calls for it. ask yourself, do you prefer your president using religion to manipulate his politics or do you want religion used to manipulate your president? that, basically, is the difference between obama and palin in this regard.

Look at this board, it is ready to hang Palin for her opinion regarding faith, not embrace her.
it's not about just faith. faith is fine when it stays where it belongs - in ones mind. palin is a mindless zealot - that's what she receives all the flak for, and rightly so.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-20 08:48:18)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-20 09:01:50
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6949|Tampa Bay Florida
Palin is NOT fit to be president.  Thats the real issue here.  Romney, Pawlenty, etc, as much as I wouldnt want them to be president are still competent and capable of holding the office.



This is not an anomoly, she has proven over and over that she cannot communicate effectively, and on top of that, she's an uneducated dumbass.  She is full of shit.
2011-06-20 09:13:13
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5617|London, England
Just want to defend one of lowings points. Science and religion can coexist. I know there are a lot of rabid atheists here but I'm perfectly ok if a person of faith accepts evolution and chalks it up to intelligent design. I'm cool with them attributing the big bang to their god. Its not like you can prove it wasnt done by their god anyway. I'd rather accept them on these terms than dismiss them completely because of intellectual bigotry.

The only people I can't stomach are creationists.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-06-20 09:13:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:


i was not speaking about religious organizations and influence those had in the past and today, i was talking about religion itself. and yes, it is as ready and suitable to be used as an information manipulation tool as it was in the past.
not really, since science and common sense seems to be the prevailing winds today.
science, religion, common sense - in politics these are just tools to be used when situation at hand calls for it. ask yourself, do you prefer your president using religion to manipulate his politics or do you want religion used to manipulate your president? that, basically, is the difference between obama and palin in this regard.

Look at this board, it is ready to hang Palin for her opinion regarding faith, not embrace her.
it's not about just faith. faith is fine when it stays where it belongs - in ones mind. palin is a mindless zealot - that's what she receives all the flak for, and rightly so.
not sure how how they are different. use religion to manipulate his politics or use religion to manipulate the president?  However you cut it, it is the man being manipulated by religion. If you are afraid of Palin because of her, not of this earth, beliefs you should be afraid of everyone else that could sit in the white house as well. Hell Nancy Reagan had an astrologer in her corner. You are not however, you really have nothing on Palin, no scandal, no real controversy, so you take what you can get, and you call her stupid for her beliefs because that is all you can make issue of. Then you have Obama who has REAL controversy regarding his politics, his credentials, his friends, yet you are not afraid of him, in fact, you give him a pass for it all as irrelevant.

Congrats you have found something to hate Palin for, nothing she has done, nothing regarding her morality or ethics, just that she believes in God creating the earth, so she is a retard. Well I guess you hadda find something.
2011-06-20 09:15:27
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5617|London, England

Spearhead wrote:

Palin is NOT fit to be president.  Thats the real issue here.  Romney, Pawlenty, etc, as much as I wouldnt want them to be president are still competent and capable of holding the office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

This is not an anomoly, she has proven over and over that she cannot communicate effectively, and on top of that, she's an uneducated dumbass.  She is full of shit.
Technically, she's right. They were still british subjects and considered themselves so.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-06-20 09:15:42
Wreckognize
Member
+294|6744
It's not like you can prove flying pink elephants that shit rainbows don't exist either.
2011-06-20 09:16:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Spearhead wrote:

Palin is NOT fit to be president.  Thats the real issue here.  Romney, Pawlenty, etc, as much as I wouldnt want them to be president are still competent and capable of holding the office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

This is not an anomoly, she has proven over and over that she cannot communicate effectively, and on top of that, she's an uneducated dumbass.  She is full of shit.
ummmm you do realize she was proven right on that don't you? SO if you want to call her a dumb ass for her Paul Revere comment, and then it turns out she was right and YOU were wrong, doesn't that kinda sorta make YOU the dumb ass then? Or wait, let me guess, it is different then right?
2011-06-20 09:25:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5617|London, England

Wreckognize wrote:

It's not like you can prove flying pink elephants that shit rainbows don't exist either.
My point is that science shouldn't be a theology battleground. Science no more disproves god than proves it. It's abused by deist and atheist alike.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-06-20 09:26:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA
Question. If Palins thoughts on men and dinosaurs is so relevant to you all. What would your opinion be IF they every prove men and dinosaurs did exist at the same time. What happens if they make a discovery of fossilized human bones inside the fossilized remains of dinosaurs bones? Is she a genius and worthy of the presidency then, while all those that thought she was nuts turns out to be the dumb asses? Or does it then become irrelevant and not the real issue?

IF it will not be the real issue if she is right about it, why is it such an issue when you think she is wrong about it?
2011-06-20 09:30:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5617|London, England

lowing wrote:

Question. If Palins thoughts on men and dinosaurs is so relevant to you all. What would your opinion be IF they every prove men and dinosaurs did exist at the same time. What happens if they make a discovery of fossilized human bones inside the fossilized remains of dinosaurs bones? Is she a genius and worthy of the presidency then, while all those that thought she was nuts turns out to be the dumb asses? Or does it then become irrelevant and not the real issue?

IF it will not be the real issue if she is right about it, why is it such an issue when you think she is wrong about it?
your 'what if?' is irrelevant. Humans and dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years apart. She's wrong because she's ignorant, much like you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-06-20 09:36:46
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6259|...
The thing about people believing in creationism to me is that it demonstrates faulty reason and a lack of knowledge and interest in pretty much all the sciences. Unacceptable for someone who's supposed to head a nation imho.

Other than that, I think much like Jay does on the subject.

Disregarding that it would be impossible, if they actually found (multiple) fossils of a human and a dinosaur dated to about the same age that wouldn't change anyone's views on Palin and the creationist movement one bit. It's just dumb luck on their part, has nothing to do with being intelligent.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-20 09:38:05)

inane little opines
2011-06-20 09:38:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Question. If Palins thoughts on men and dinosaurs is so relevant to you all. What would your opinion be IF they every prove men and dinosaurs did exist at the same time. What happens if they make a discovery of fossilized human bones inside the fossilized remains of dinosaurs bones? Is she a genius and worthy of the presidency then, while all those that thought she was nuts turns out to be the dumb asses? Or does it then become irrelevant and not the real issue?

IF it will not be the real issue if she is right about it, why is it such an issue when you think she is wrong about it?
your 'what if?' is irrelevant. Humans and dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years apart. She's wrong because she's ignorant, much like you.
yeah yeah yeah

because all that can be unearthed has been unearthed right? Just because the oldest human fossils found was X years old, does not mean they are oldest fossils that will EVER be found.

Just playing devils advocate here.
2011-06-20 09:40:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Shocking wrote:

The thing about people believing in creationism to me is that it demonstrates faulty reason and a lack of knowledge and interest in pretty much all the sciences. Unacceptable for someone who's supposed to head a nation imho.

Other than that, I think much like Jay does on the subject.

Disregarding that it would be impossible, if they actually found (multiple) fossils of a human and a dinosaur dated to about the same age that wouldn't change anyone's views on Palin and the creationist movement one bit. It's just dumb luck on their part, has nothing to do with being intelligent.
so no matter what, she is wrong, even if she is right. Well yeah, I can see how she would have a hard time winning you over then.
2011-06-20 09:41:00
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6259|...
Well the oldest 'human' fossils found are much more ape-like than man. And those only date to a couple million years back. Dinosaurs went extinct many tens of millions of years in the past. The gap is enormous and it's inconceivable of them living in the same time period.
inane little opines
2011-06-20 09:44:26
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6259|...

lowing wrote:

so no matter what, she is wrong, even if she is right. Well yeah, I can see how she would have a hard time winning you over then.
They quote "dragon" passages in the Bible to "prove" that man and dinosaurs coexisted.

By any standard, that is ridiculous.
inane little opines
2011-06-20 09:44:34
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6975
humans wouldve got ate anyway. thats why most mammals during the dino period were tiny.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-06-20 09:48:32
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Shocking wrote:

Well the oldest 'human' fossils found are much more ape-like than man. And those only date to a couple million years back. Dinosaurs went extinct many tens of millions of years in the past. The gap is enormous and it's inconceivable of them living in the same time period.
Well you are hitting on the key words, what they have FOUND and what has yet to be FOUND  could draw 2 very different conclusions. "facts" always change with discovery.

anyway, again, I am merely playing devils advocate here.
2011-06-20 09:56:59
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5496|Cleveland, Ohio

Spearhead wrote:

Palin is NOT fit to be president.  Thats the real issue here.  Romney, Pawlenty, etc, as much as I wouldnt want them to be president are still competent and capable of holding the office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4C7bvHv2w

This is not an anomoly, she has proven over and over that she cannot communicate effectively, and on top of that, she's an uneducated dumbass.  She is full of shit.
this post makes you more stupid than she is tbh
2011-06-20 09:57:43
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6259|...

lowing wrote:

Well you are hitting on the key words, what they have FOUND and what has yet to be FOUND  could draw 2 very different conclusions. "facts" always change with discovery.

anyway, again, I am merely playing devils advocate here.
Considering this (quoting wiki to make it easy);

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.
when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur species at the close of the Mesozoic era. (about 65 million years ago)
Let me put it this way, safe to say that if they found dinosaur and man fossils togheter that would bring about a complete revision of... everything. Our image of the planet as it was in the past and even evolution itself. Because really, in our understanding of the world it's literally impossible for the two to coexist. On any level.

And that understanding was built up on two centuries of reasoning and compiling evidence versus a couple citations pulled from the Bible speaking about dragons. The creationists are the anti-thesis of science.

lowing wrote:

so no matter what, she is wrong, even if she is right. Well yeah, I can see how she would have a hard time winning you over then.
How would she, in any way, be "right"? There is 0 evidence to support a belief that man and dinosaurs coexisted. Nothing, nada. On the contrary, there's a mountain of evidence telling you they didn't (and couldn't) coexist. This is all conveniently ignored for the sake of "belief". It's ignorance.

In this case the "what if" only serves for an argument reinforcing willful ignorance. In reality, man and dinosaur will never be found to coexist.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-20 10:17:17)

inane little opines
2011-06-20 10:04:03
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6941|Disaster Free Zone

lowing wrote:

Question. If Palins thoughts on men and dinosaurs is so relevant to you all. What would your opinion be IF they every prove men and dinosaurs did exist at the same time. What happens if they make a discovery of fossilized human bones inside the fossilized remains of dinosaurs bones? Is she a genius and worthy of the presidency then, while all those that thought she was nuts turns out to be the dumb asses? Or does it then become irrelevant and not the real issue?

IF it will not be the real issue if she is right about it, why is it such an issue when you think she is wrong about it?
Then she'll be heralded as the next Nostradamus. No seriously it doesn't matter if what she thinks was actually true, she has no evidence nor rational reason to believe what she does. It's no different to believing in talking bananas. You can't say they don't/never did exist.

 

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 31

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard