Ever heard of an non-judgemental Christian? Here ya go. :)

dirkzen · 2012-05-23T21:33:46.584376+00:00

Why are you a christian?

dougcgrubbs · 2012-05-23T20:30:02.601169+00:00

Ok, from memory it is viable. But the ozone wasn't exactly around at this stage and so cosmic rays should have killed any surface life before it got going (which is why underwater vents are so viable). Was just looking for reassurance.

dougcgrubbs · 2012-05-23T20:22:51.768407+00:00

In the defence of lightning strike. It is viable, correct? Just not anywhere near our now more viable theories (thermal vents).

dougcgrubbs · 2012-05-23T20:20:22.806523+00:00

OK, so evolution can explain how we got from single celled nothings into humans. But you are right to notice that evolution requires 3 key things to work: reproduction, mutation and selection. So where did the first reproducing/mutating forms of life come from?

This is covered by the corner of science called abiogenesis. Basically, we have a bunch of theories (lightning strikes pond, thermal vents underwater) but we don't know which one actually kicked off life on this planet. Either way, abiogenesis is what you want to look into.

Gman3546 · 2012-05-23T20:01:24.041143+00:00

I don't think it's okay to disrespect other people.

Difference between people and beliefs are important here. I don't respect silly beliefs, they should be ridiculed. Politics is built on not tolerating opposing views. That tension allows for progress.

EDIT: Tolerating here is within reason, I mean intellectually tolerating.

Reptilian_Overlords · 1 day

Atheists seem to have no problem coping with the world.

Religion won't just disappear, that is going to by a by product of adequate education. Another by product will be the construction of a world view that, like religion, can help people cope. I don't see the problem.

There are plenty of irreligions.

t3hshoe · 1 day

I haven't read either of his books. But if it is the cosmos you are interested in, Lawrence Krauss JUST released a book covering the creation and formation of our universe from nothing. Here is a lecture on the same topic (by Kruass), if you like the lecture - you have found your book..

chetti990 · 1 day

Just saw this on /r/funny and lol'd, had to show it to the girlfriend. Worth stealing.

t3hshoe · 1 day

What info are you keen to bury yourself in?

tcpdrangon · 1 day

I logically disproved Jesus.

Considering historical scholars are yet to do this, you should give them a call.

Bruce_G · 1 day

Not a problem. Hope it answers your question to some degree.

NukeThePope · 1 day

What a horrible answer. His source, science fiction and time travel.

He literally based this off of television.

magnetichorse · 1 day

Not a problem, follow the conversation from my post for a bit of background info on them. For example how Matthew is an idiot.

magnetichorse · 1 day

Yeah that's it. The OT prophecy was written as a poem. It was the style of the time to write the same thing twice in a row for emphasis e.g. "She was riding on a lion, she was riding on a fanged beast".

The author of Matthew was blissfully unaware of this and so had Jesus actually ride in on two donkeys. That is like someone using my above example to write a story about a girl riding in on a lion and a snake. It is really funny and damages the christian claim. Jesus divinity is largely staked on the fact that he meets OT prophecies - yet it seems evident this was hacked in after the fact.

Another one is a mistranslation of 'young woman' to 'virgin'. It was foretold that the Jewish messiah would have a 'young woman' as a mother, this was mistranslated to virgin and it was hacked in.

I imagine the fact that Jesus wasn't called Immanuel must have eaten at Matthew inside.

withinthreshold · 1 day

i just feel like she won't admit that proof is needed to make such claims

That is when you bring up the null and alternate hypothesis. Show why proof is needed for claims. You could make an example.

I claim that I clan fly
Do you believe my claim?
Ofcourse not, why? Because I have not demonstrated it to be true. Thus, it is assumed to be false

The claim is assumed to be false because it asserts information to be true that is unlike anything we have ever witnessed before.

This translates to the claim about the weather for example. Everything we know about the weather has a natural explanation. To claim that there is supernatural involvement asserts information to be true that opposes current convention. It needs to be presented with evidence to be accepted.

MyDaddyTaughtMeWell · 1 day

One merely needs to look at how much knowledge is contained on the internet. It is better than any encyclopedia that a kid can pick up.

Used correctly it is an unparralelled source of knowledge (in the context of school).

adamr0cks13 · 1 day

Well, it is a plagiarism. And the original is written better.

Nagaram92 · 1 day

Well, a voice in my head isn't going to cut it for me - especially one that won't do anything supernatural. I would be more inclined to go to a doctor and believe I have a mystery illness than think God is actually talking to me.

adamr0cks13 · 1 day

Whoever wrote this ripped it straight from 4chan. It was presented better there.

lockerdude · 1 day

Whether or not religion exists has no influence on whether or not there is an afterlife.

Using what we know, everything points to no afterlife (sorry).

but everyone who has ever lived goes to an afterlife, but it is a place where you can in no way harm one another

This is called wishful thinking and bullshit. It holds no truth value. Get yourself frozen, it's probably the best chance you have at another shot.

tarabluh · 1 day

Argument from popularity? Steer clear of that one.

Also, you don't have to be rational, scientific nor an atheist to subscribe to this subreddit.

Thatpostmademecryman · 1 day

Poor troll 1/10

Gay people gross me out

That is your real problem.

Penguinrob · 1 day

Wow, again, no. You have dropped what I said.

You suggested they shouldnt be allowed to believe what they want to believe, given another factor presented as a valid reason

No, given factors that invalidate their beliefs. If their beliefs are invalid, they need not be respected.

That's what "respecting someone's belief entails".

The dictionary would disagree with you.

Respect: Admire something deeply, as a result of its abilities, qualities, or achievements.

There is nothing to respect about conclusions drawn from faith. It has no investigative power and its achievements over the years have been shameful. It is the poorest reasoning method of all and should be treated as such.

Penguinrob · 1 day

you should be allowed to persecute Christians

Look what happens when I pull a statement out of context. Don't do it to me. Add in the rest of what I said before parading around like a twat:

Why should they have the right to believe what they want, in the face of evidence and/or logic, yet others cannot

That is what I actually said. I am saying they cannot willfully ignore known facts about the universe, or put their fingers in their ears when logic comes their way, and expect to be respected. They can believe what they want, that's their right, but I have no reason to respect those beliefs - especially when you consider the harm they are doing.

Saying that you should be allowed to persecute Christians because Atheists get persecuted is massively retarded

I never said that.

So you put words in my mouth and pulled my statement out of context, good job man.

EDIT: By 'expect to be respected', I mean, 'expect to have their beliefs respected'.

mrbluesky88 · 1 day

I caught parkway drive, prom queen and amity affliction at small venues.

My brother who is 2 years older than me would go see amity play at the uni pub for like 5 or 6 people.

Jayesar

TROPHY CASE

Jayesar

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login