What if God..

[Vicboy]

What if God was a female, what would she look like?

Well, basically, it can't be.

God created Adam by His own looks.

We call God a He in bibles.

 

[PurplePoot]

If you can replace a knee...

But we can't really replace a face. A knee is slightly less vulnerable.

Its a fact because...you can't represent an entire anything by only one minute part?

A cog != a clock...that's a fact...

But a cog is not based on a clock. You are based on christian premises, as are they.

No...It is like saying the atomic theory is subjective and meaningless, because someone makes a nuke out of it, and another discovers cold fusion energy...

Hmm? Science is amoral. Both of those are good science, and both of the designers were smart men indeed. That has nothing to do with subjectivity either.

Not what I was saying at all...

Everything humans have contact with, are inevitably, bound to be used either for 'good' or for 'evil'...A Medical Scientist doesn't discover a cure...for the mere sake of it...he does it for 'the good'.

That's quite the generalization you're making.

 

[Elenai]

But we can't really replace a face. A knee is slightly less vulnerable.

Michael Jackson was rather easily done...

But a cog is not based on a clock. You are based on christian premises, as are they.

The Bible is a blue print...A cog is but a part, the Clock is the broad spectrum.

Hmm? Science is amoral. Both of those are good science, and both of the designers were smart men indeed. That has nothing to do with subjectivity either.

...I'm just going to compare here...

The Bible is subjective and meaningless because someone can pull a crusade, or be a mother Teresa...

The atomic theory is subjective and meaningless, because someone can make a nuke out of it, and another can discover cold fusion energy...

 

[PurplePoot]

Michael Jackson was rather easily done...

Did we change the way it functioned? No. We changed the aesthetic appearance strictly.

The Bible is a blue print...A cog is but a part, the Clock is the broad spectrum.

Then the blue prints are what sucks - it boils down to the same thing.

...I'm just going to compare here...

The Bible is subjective and meaningless because someone can pull a crusade, or be a mother Teresa...

The atomic theory is subjective and meaningless, because someone can make a nuke out of it, and another can discover cold fusion energy...

Atomic theory does not attempt to proclaim morality. The bible does. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Elenai]

Did we change the way it functioned? No. We changed the aesthetic appearance strictly.

...that was a joke...

Then the blue prints are what sucks - it boils down to the same thing.

...I'm just going to compare here...

Atomic theory does not attempt to proclaim morality. The bible does. Therein lies the difference.

Religion != morality.

The scientist/person still uses science/religion for a goal of good/evil...Whether or not it claims to be amoral or not, doesn't mean that science or religion can be used for moral/immoral acts.

 

[PurplePoot]

Religion != morality.

The scientist/person still uses science/religion for a goal of good/evil...Whether or not it claims to be amoral or not, doesn't mean that science or religion can be used for moral/immoral acts.

Use is not purpose. Religion has morality written into its fundamentals. Science does not.

 

[Elenai]

Use is not purpose. Religion has morality written into its fundamentals. Science does not.

The purpose of religion is for purification...morality is just something that happens to be talked about.

 

[PurplePoot]

The purpose of religion is for purification...morality is just something that happens to be talked about.

Purification has to do with morality. As you stated earlier, pure is pure from sin. Sin is immorality.

--

As Hakeem rightly corrected me, *Judeo-Christian religion.

 

[Elenai]

Purification has to do with morality. As you stated earlier, pure is pure from sin. Sin is immorality.

Purification is not however, achieved through 'moral' morality.

"You can't work off a theft through community service."

(bear with the generalization please)

 

[Agrias]

What if God was a male, what would he look like?

Well, a blinding ball of light that appears as CENSORED when humans see him. Too epic for the naked eye.


What if God was a female, what would she look like?

Like a man. FFS he would own lol. He made himself a baby and forced it into Mary.


What if God didn't(did) exist, what would happen?

If he "didn't" exist the world would essentially be pagan idols and whatever you'd like to think of. 'God' caused Abraham to father Judaism and told Abraham to make his name Abraham. Jews crucified Jesus and once Jesus was crucified, the church built for god shattered in an earthquake.

He apparently does exist. There are Muslims, Jews, and Christians. There are others who believe in more gods, not much of a difference. God is all powerful and polytheistic religions believe in many gods with powers God may or may not have. Atheists are those who deny a creator and believe an explosion generated us.

I'm going to quote a friend or wherever this may be from...

The Big Bang Theory is a joke. An explosion in a print shop couldn't write an encylcopedia.

 

[Elenai]

An explosion of paint and an artist standing in the middle of the room can make Sistine Chapel however...

 

[Agrias]

Touche. Well, I guess I'm out lol.

 

[Gilles]

I can't defend against arguments which you don't provide. Beyond that, I'm not evolutionary biologist, so I can't promise my answers will be the best they can. Finally, I'd just like to point out that even the Vatican accepts evolution nowadays, and that it has no conflict with their faith - it's only the really radical (idiots, if you read their work) types such as Ray Comfort (and his coworker Kirk Cameron) who continue to deny its existence.

I didn't mean the whole theory was flawed, I had just been told that even now, we can't perfect the theory at all. Things like the Darwin Theory have their flaws, but people seem to cover them up.

 

[Hoernchen]

1. A very old and wise male monkey
2. A very old and wise female monkey
3. If he didn't exist then everything would be like it is right now. If he did exist than I would take my pink flying unicorn and fly to heaven to chill with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

1. A very old and wise male monkey
2. A very old and wise female monkey
3. If he didn't exist then everything would be like it is right now. If he did exist than I would take my pink flying unicorn and fly to heaven to chill with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

What makes you think God would create pink, flying unicorns? And what makes you think God is affiliated with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

They're fictional characters centered on religious Holidays, not old friends of God, but a creation of someone's imagination.... Well, okay. Santa is based on Saint Nick, but it still doesn't change the fact that he's not real.

Besides, how do you know that if God didn't exist, it would be like this right now? How would you know that God doesn't exist? Nothing says your correct.

Edit: You should also know that God really wouldn't create things (Such as pink, flying unicorns...) based on the imagination of a 5 year old girl.

 

[Hakeem]

I'd rather have my opponents launch valid criticisms than nonsensical ones.

I like pie too. They can bake pie all they want. As long as they aren't trying to bake a pie with a recipe for cake.

They can debate the origin of life all they want, but they should not think that debating the origin of life is in any way debating any part of evolution.

Not according to many of the faithful.

But then, they aren't aware of their own logic are they?

There are major "bugs" in organisms which I can't see a perfect designer as leaving (a random example, the tubes in your ears to equalize pressure are not particularly functional).

I'm pretty sure he's not done yet. Unless parents stopped having unique children and nobody has noticed yet...

Or that our conception of Physics is wrong at the moment

Seems pretty good to me. I'm not seeing any logical interpretation that allows our universe to be the complete cosmos.

Not with the tools we have to debate it.

Who said anything about debate? In the realm of God, we might as well just make up stuff. "Realm" meaning a context of conversation. Since most of us seem unable to solve the question, making stuff up is a good substitute to keeping the conversation alive. This thread is basically (literally?) asking us to make up stuff.

But what can you really do with intelligence (and they weren't really THAT smart) in a primitive world? You can make spears and traps but in the end, you would still use strength. You really can't do anything with intelligence that would make strength obsolete or at least not as necessary as other things in those times. And by the time humans were making tools and domesticating animals, they had already changed enough to be close to the modern human.

Things like that do not happen all at once. In the early stage of our branch of evolution, we still had strength like other primates. Somewhere along the line, a child was born that had a tiny fraction more gray matter than his parents. He had kids, just as everyone else. Some had that tiny bit of intelligence, others did not. Some, by pure luck, had just a little bit more intelligence. They had children, who had children, who had children, who had children. The population grew to the point where there was a gradient of less intelligent to more intelligent. Over hundreds and thousands of lifetimes, a few of the less intelligent ones died as a result of their minimal intelligence. This left the rest of the population to keep breeding the gradient of intelligences, but with just a tiny bit more probability of having the more intelligent ones, because the few missing less intelligent ones were not there to bring down the average intelligence.

This happened for long enough that the level of intelligence got to the point of using primitive tools instead of just raw flesh. Eventually they stumbled upon the concept of sharpness. This helped them kill more prey, and hence, allowed the population to increase, the diversity of gradient of intelligence increasing with it.

For some reason or another, the stronger ones started to die off, because they no longer possessed a significant advantage. (Tools, eh?)

If someone identifies themselves as a christian, they are a christian.

Suppose I were to train a parrot to say it is a Christian.

Atomic theory does not attempt to proclaim morality. The bible does. Therein lies the difference.

That difference is irrelevant to the metaphor.

You are saying the Bible is meaningless because of its property of subjectivity. The "meaningfulness" you speak of I will assume to be morality.

• The Bible is useless for morality because multiple moralities can be interpreted from it.
• Atomic theory is useless for technology because multiple technologies can be created from it.

Additionally...

• Elenai's metaphors are fine. The problem with the last one used was that he didn't actually show us the brick wall behind the flame.
• Elenai does not have to answer for the interpretation of other Christians any more than I need to.
• Elenai and PurplePoot need to lrn2not reply to every part of each others posts.
• Hoernchen has no knowledge of heart shaped rocks on Pluto.
• Just a stranger on the bus...

 

[Dark Master]

Why there are many religions? And all they believe in other God(s). So, if God exist, he will be one, for all people on this world...

 

[Gausslander]

Why there are many religions? And all they believe in other God(s). So, if God exist, he will be one, for all people on this world...

No... he'll be the unforgiving bastard that sends you all to hell. That is, if he exists.

 

[Zombie]

That has nothing to do with the argument, and you don't provide any basis for your theory. My point was that there is observable proof of evolution in our time, and thus plenty of evidence that it is highly likely the way we came about.

You didn't prove anything either. I know there might be more evidence for evolution than against it, but that might be because scientists researching this topic want to prove it, not to contradict it.

Btw, this site for example has some very interesting shit. It's not a full contradiction of evolution, but it gives it a few punches.

The first part of your comment here has absolutely nothing to do with evolution here.

Looks like I was wrong about the definition of evolution, but my argument still stands. You were talking about the "survival of the fittest" a few posts back. If you want to survive, you have to figure out the way of survival. You can't do that without instinct or intelligence. Or was it simply spontaneous?

Beyond that, it makes the incredibly wrong supposition that since something has not been proven, making up shit is valid.

It's called religious history.

Evolution does not attempt to explain intelligence or instinct's bases, and thus it obviously doesn't. That's like asking the Law of Gravity to tell you what colour the sky is.

I don't see how they don't add up. You need motivation to live.

How does that follow? An intelligent designer would tailor each species in such a way that it was more effective, no?

God's ways are higher than ours, so how can we possibly understand Him?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

It is your responsibility entirely. If you identify yourself by the same book and beliefs as these evangelists, you cannot say you are different. To practice Christianity is to practice Christianity, and their beliefs are a different interpretation of the same bases.

You can't pick and choose which christians count. If someone identifies themselves as a christian, they are a christian.

The bible, like many exhaustingly large works, has many possible interpretations. For example: I personally associate myself with The Hive Workshop for the community and Off-Topic forum. There are also plenty of people that choose to associate themselves with THW to help starting mapmakers, others who upload maps, others who leech maps, etc. Just because some connotations are commonly (or loudly, in the case of fundamentalism and religions) associated with an object does not mean that there are not other connotations that can be associated with it.

Saying, for example, that you can't base christianity on the actions of the TV evangelicals, and that you have to interpret different parts of the bible differently.

Carrying on with my previous example, different actions and behaviours are tolerated and expected in the Writing and Storyboarding section than in Off-Topic, and different reactions would be responses from the same action depending on the forum. They are both still parts of THW, but they are both also quite independent of one-another.

But we can't really replace a face. A knee is slightly less vulnerable.

Out of context, but I can't help myself. Face transplant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But a cog is not based on a clock. You are based on christian premises, as are they.

A clock is the sum of its cogs, not the one bad cog. The one bad cog can screw the clock's functionality, but it's still a nice clock and it still kind of works. When that cog is one subjective interpretation of something as compared to another subjective interpretation of that something, it should not matter as critically to the functionality of the clock.

They're fictional characters centered on religious Holidays, not old friends of God, but a creation of someone's imagination.... Well, okay. Santa is based on Saint Nick, but it still doesn't change the fact that he's not real.

... You should also know that God really wouldn't create things (Such as pink, flying unicorns...) based on the imagination of a 5 year old girl.

> EphY: It's getting late honey, go up to your room and get ready for bed.
> EphY: Cry yourself to sleep about what the mean man said about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and IPU. It's okay sweetie, he's just a mean man on the internets.

Besides, how do you know that if God did exist, it would be like this right now? How would you know that God does exist? Nothing says your correct.

Just so you know, nothing says you're correct either.

 

[InfiniteSeven]

> EphY: It's getting late honey, go up to your room and get ready for bed.
> EphY: Cry yourself to sleep about what the mean man said about Santa, the Easter Bunny, and IPU. It's okay sweetie, he's just a mean man on the internets.

=3

Just so you know, nothing says you're correct either.

Yes, I know I could always be wrong. I don't claim there is one, but I don't claim there isn't one; since this is something that cannot be backed up either way. I was just trying to stress the point that he can't claim there isn't one because there is no definite evidence to prove it.

 

[PurplePoot]

The Big Bang Theory is a joke. An explosion in a print shop couldn't write an encylcopedia.

And it didn't. It let out a massive mess.

I didn't mean the whole theory was flawed, I had just been told that even now, we can't perfect the theory at all. Things like the Darwin Theory have their flaws, but people seem to cover them up.

Then present the flaws...

I like pie too. They can bake pie all they want. As long as they aren't trying to bake a pie with a recipe for cake.

They can debate the origin of life all they want, but they should not think that debating the origin of life is in any way debating any part of evolution.

Hence why I told them not to bother debating evolution?

Seems pretty good to me. I'm not seeing any logical interpretation that allows our universe to be the complete cosmos.

As I said about Newtonian Mechanics vs Relativity, such theories only work within the scope we are created. Since all modern physics is within the scope of the universe existing, it is not fit to make predictions outside of that scope.

Suppose I were to train a parrot to say it is a Christian.

Blah, what I mean to say is that if they claim to draw their faith out of biblical background, then they are christian.

Elenai's metaphors are fine. The problem with the last one used was that he didn't actually show us the brick wall behind the flame.

As I said.

Elenai does not have to answer for the interpretation of other Christians any more than I need to.

The bad with the good. You cannot claim the bible is all-good if it brings a significant amount of the other about as well.

Atomic theory is useless for technology because multiple technologies can be created from it.

Sure it can.

The Bible is useless for morality because multiple moralities can be interpreted from it.

For justifying morality, since the scope of what can be interpreted from it is so wide and random.

 

[Japut3h]

Honestly, I really don't see the point in bothering with topics like this. If there is indeed an entity capable of creating something as complex and colossal as all existence, it's pretty damn doubtful that a human could understand it's intentions, backgrounds or acts.

So, yeah, if you ask me, it's all pointless.

 

[Zombie]

Arguing on the internet is pointless anyway, still everyone seems to be doing it.

 

[mato2]

Religion was first invented to control people, using their ignorance.
I believe a lot of the people out there know what kind of power the church had, during the Inquisition. A bishop could say someone's a heretic/witch, and they would be tortured until they confess, and then burned/decapitated/hanged/boiled in oil etc.

 

[Gilles]

Is arguing in person any more fruitful?

Religion was first invented to control people, using their ignorance.
I believe a lot of the people out there know what kind of power the church had, during the Inquisition. A bishop could say someone's a heretic/witch, and they would be tortured until they confess, and then burned/decapitated/hanged/boiled in oil etc.

The inquisition happened long after the Catholic Church was established, so I don't see how it was "invented to control people". You simply brought up a touchy subject to use emotion towards your argument. Yes the inquisition was wrong, but do you see anything of the kind practiced today?

 

[PurplePoot]

You didn't prove anything either. I know there might be more evidence for evolution than against it, but that might be because scientists researching this topic want to prove it, not to contradict it.

Btw, this site for example has some very interesting shit. It's not a full contradiction of evolution, but it gives it a few punches.

Actually, scientists want to contradict theories - it gains them fame and that is the entire point of the scientific method.

As for that site

• Survival-neutral mutations can happen and, as they don't affect the survival of the animal, won't be stopped or favoured.
• This point doesn't even make sense. A) It's agreed that evolution and religion can coexist. B) There is no guarantee that is human. C) Where is the rest of the skeleton? The femur is not a great bone for identifying...
• Idiots again. Protein comes in more than meat, and they don't cite their sources let alone support them. Their measurements also seem to be by modern standards.
• Since this one has subpoints, here we are:
  1. Lack of evidence does not disprove, only fails to prove. Also, there is more in the fossil record than most creationists realize. Also also, evolution does not mean we will see a "crocodile-bird" or anything else - other life forms are evolving as well as humans.
  2. What the hell? These people have no idea what they are talking about. The atoms could not form? Do they even know how chemistry and physics work...?
  3. Black Sea anyone? Also, this demonstrates cluelessness in geology.
  4. Then redo your math and take into account more factors.
  5. What the hell? Ever heard of radioactive decay?
  6. What? If I hit a pre-cambrian rock with another rock, I can chip it. Does that make this chipping also pre-cambrian?
  7. Or many other things.
  8. Ah, the argument of irreducible complexity. Different parts of the cell can function on their own - apparently the writer conveniently forgot about this.
  9. So?
• What the fuck? I checked some of the passages, and can't help but laugh.
• What is that? A blob.

All that webpage shows is that young-earth creationists have their heads up their asses.

Looks like I was wrong about the definition of evolution, but my argument still stands. You were talking about the "survival of the fittest" a few posts back. If you want to survive, you have to figure out the way of survival. You can't do that without instinct or intelligence. Or was it simply spontaneous?

That's still origin of life stuff, not evolution. Watch the video.

It's called religious history.

And it has no backing.

I don't see how they don't add up. You need motivation to live.

No you don't. Simple life is basically a machine. Do computers need motivation to run?

God's ways are higher than ours, so how can we possibly understand Him?

Assuming it exists. That's basically the smoothest dodge response in existence, and it doesn't at all contribute to the argument...

The bible, like many exhaustingly large works, has many possible interpretations. For example: I personally associate myself with The Hive Workshop for the community and Off-Topic forum. There are also plenty of people that choose to associate themselves with THW to help starting mapmakers, others who upload maps, others who leech maps, etc. Just because some connotations are commonly (or loudly, in the case of fundamentalism and religions) associated with an object does not mean that there are not other connotations that can be associated with it.

But you are both visitors of The Hive Workshop.

Out of context, but I can't help myself. Face transplant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are just replacing the skin, not restructuring anything.

 

[Restor]

Only thing what is infinite, is human stupidity, nothing more


and maybe number of spam mails.....

 

[Zombie]

And it has no backing.

The point of religion is to believe in something without evidence.

No you don't. Simple life is basically a machine. Do computers need motivation to run?

Not a good example. Computers were created by a superior force too, they didn't evolve.

Assuming it exists. That's basically the smoothest dodge response in existence, and it doesn't at all contribute to the argument...

Well, there are a lot of theories for that, maybe God created so many species before he wanted to test which one is the most effective on a long term.

 

[PurplePoot]

The point of religion is to believe in something without evidence.

And you're proud of that?

Not a good example. Computers were created by a superior force too, they didn't evolve.

What does evolution have to do with motivation? And it's a perfect example - non-sentient life (as far as we know, almost all of it) doesn't factor in motivation.

Well, there are a lot of theories for that, maybe God created so many species before he wanted to test which one is the most effective on a long term.

If he was omnipotent and omniscient, testing would not be necessary.

 

[Restor]

well, determinism...


Only I choose which hand I will rise up, left or right. I do not believe that it is chosen when universum began. Yes, free will. But I dont think machines will have free will someday. It is too complicated, so no Terminators, no Matrix, no Dune. (in fact, I,Robot movie was closest to the point, if machine has rule to protect humans, ad absurdum It can just kill the most dangerous of them and put the rest of mankind to some jails where they cannot harm themself, but they will live-very bored but live)

 

[Hakeem]

Hence why I told them not to bother debating evolution?

Evolution is pretty hard to debate. If anything, the part to attack is the "where did life come from" question - there are some pretty solid theories, but none of them are as developed as evolution is.

The part of what? I'm fairly certain someone could interpret this to mean someone should debate evolution by questioning the origin of life.

For justifying morality, since the scope of what can be interpreted from it is so wide and random.

The scope of applicable uses that can be realized from atomic theory is so wide and random.

The bad with the good. You cannot claim the bible is all-good if it brings a significant amount of the other about as well.

Whether or not any particular Christian is getting their beliefs from the Bible is up for interpretation.

---

@Poot:
I am not defending the Bible, because I would do so inadequately, but if you are going to attack the Bible, attack the Bible, not what some random person "gets out of it."

 

[PurplePoot]

I tried that, and they said the bible was open to interpretation. So I attack peoples' interpretations of it, and they say they are not in the spirit of the bible.

It's another unbreakable loop...

 

[Aschy]

The point of religion is to believe in something without evidence.

I never checked my sources but I'm sure its about loving our creator, its also not a one way street.

Why there are many religions? And all they believe in other God(s). So, if God exist, he will be one, for all people on this world...

There are many religions about many different things, its just what is based off evidence. One of the things I like to call religion because I don't associate myself with a physical building, I just refer to my religion as my belief in one God.

# What the fuck? I checked some of the passages, and can't help but laugh.
# What is that? A blob.

What's so funny did I miss it, I'm pretty sure there is really smart people out there that don't think its all that funny either? Some of that is actual information that was stated in the Bible long before Scientists discovered these theories.


But I do see what your saying it this is one of the things that leads me away from believing in the Bible, the fact that it never says what you think it says. When reading passages from the Bible always be sure to compare to many different types of Bibles, for complete accuracy.

 

[PurplePoot]

What's so funny did I miss it, I'm pretty sure there is really smart people out there that don't think its all that funny either? Some of that is actual information that was stated in the Bible long before Scientists discovered these theories.

But I do see what your saying it this is one of the things that leads me away from believing in the Bible, the fact that it never says what you think it says. When reading passages from the Bible always be sure to compare to many different types of Bibles, for complete accuracy.

It reminds me of horoscopes - so vague that you can interpret basically anything to be in line with it.

 

[Aschy]

It reminds me of horoscopes - so vague that you can interpret basically anything to be in line with it.

But it is true a lot of Bibles look like fairytale novels.

This is what I find really interesting about it, and the fact that some people go off on HUGE tangents when looking at these and come up at some crazy theory. The only thing that I'm concerned about is the actual meaning behind the text, I'm sure that every sentence in that book was meant to mean something and not just to make it really fucking long.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Every story in those books has a moral and represents a guide to how you should life your life. The stories themselves, are still stories. Moses did not split the sea in two, okay? It just doesn't happen.

EDIT: Thanks, Elenai.

 

[Elenai]

Moses*

Edit: you are welcome, and don't worry...lots of people confuse them (its the beard)

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Oops. I keep getting those two mixed up. /facepalm

 

[Aschy]

Every story in those books has a moral and represents a guide to how you should life your life. The stories themselves, are still stories. Moses did not split the sea in two, okay? It just doesn't happen.

EDIT: Thanks, Elenai.

Well, it was suppose to be God doing it for him I'm pretty sure, and before that God had created a pillar of fire to slow the Egyptians. But it all does sound to perfect, all these old people and sick people who slow everyone down. I just don't really see how they could have peace'd that fast.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Do you REALLY think there was a near-woirldwide flood barely 10,000 (or something like that) years ago?

 

[Aschy]

Do you REALLY think there was a near-woirldwide flood barely 10,000 (or something like that) years ago?

I know a lot about the Bible but not everything I still like to sit down with people who have more experience using scriptures n' such.

But rather than talking about "knowing" if this took place, I do think this happened and I also believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. But explaining it only takes us to other arguments with my belief of these events like:

1. Was the earth a moist tropical climate before the flood (And no need for rain)?

2. Did rain only came to exist after the flood of Noah's time?

3. Is a rainbow a symbol between us and God?

To my knowledge of the Bible right now only allows me to show you this as my reasoning.

~13~ I have set(A) my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. ~14~ When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, ~15~ (B) I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh


All things I cannot answer, but I have faith that these events transpired just like an Evolutionist has faith there is links between fossil records.

 

[Arvedui]

Do you REALLY think there was a near-woirldwide flood barely 10,000 (or something like that) years ago?

Actually, there are more than one account of a "worldwide" flood.

Epic of Gilgamesh is one. I haven't read it in a LONG time but from what I can remember, Gilgamesh tries to find someone who had lived through the flood. Finds him and shit happens. Again, I haven't read it in a long time so it may be a little different.

Also, around that time period supposedly a giant eruption from a volcano blackened the sky and a giant tidal wave hit the Minoans and supposedly Palestine and those areas.

Of course it's been awhile since I've researched this, so 1 or 2 things may be wrong, but my point is that there's more than 1 account of a flood and an actual "natural" reason for it. I'll try to find where I saw it before, but I'm not gonna look too hard lol.

 

[Gilles]

Do you REALLY think there was a near-woirldwide flood barely 10,000 (or something like that) years ago?

I believe there was a large flood, however, it could very well be metaphorical. As well, it simply could have been Europe and the Middle East, seeing as that was the only known world to those people.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Religion was first invented to control people, using their ignorance.
I believe a lot of the people out there know what kind of power the church had, during the Inquisition. A bishop could say someone's a heretic/witch, and they would be tortured until they confess, and then burned/decapitated/hanged/boiled in oil etc.

In this post (mine, not yours), I am going to explain why you are a retarded fuck. In a pretty tiny paragraph. With one commonly-known example. And then you'll feel really fucking stupid. Mostly because you are. Here I go. The sentences will be simple so you can understand.

Ancient Greeks had gods to explain the world around them. Most historians count that as a religion.

Fuck paragraphs, that was only two sentences. Damn, I'm good. And you're a retarded fuck.

Just to make sure you can't even think about contesting the fact that you are a retarded fuck (or, if you insist, that your post was fucking retarded), here's more counter-examples to your fucking retarded post: Poseidon, god of the sea, was created to explain why there were waves in the sea and not in inland lakes. The sun moved through the sky because Helios pulled it along in his chariot. There are seasons because Demeter is alternatively happy and sad about Persephone being present or gone.

But you are both visitors of The Hive Workshop.

But we visit for different reasons, and, more importantly, behave differently for understandably different reasons. Even look at Off-Topic versus Something Else. I could post something blunt, stupid, and mildly offensive in either one, but depending on which one I posted it in, it could be seen as me making a joke, or me being a troll. Different denominations of the same faith share the same overall behaviours and beliefs, but different connotations; in exactly the same way that different boards on a forum have different contexts. Yes, the overall purpose is the same, but different denominations cannot be equivocated with one-another. Look at Catholics v Protestants in Ireland, they hate each others' guts.

They are just replacing the skin, not restructuring anything.

I said that I couldn't help myself, I thought I was making a joke.

The point of religion is to believe in something without evidence.

If there's anything stronger than facepalm, imagine me doing that...
What a completely counter-productive description of faith to those who seek to test or break it. The purpose of faith is having knowledge, and having the experience to trust that it at worst a dilution of fact.

Do you REALLY think there was a near-woirldwide flood barely 10,000 (or something like that) years ago?

I do believe that there is geological evidence of at least a region-wide flood, and there are large numbers of cultures with flood stories.

 

[manstie]

What if god smoked Canabus?
Weird al ripoff of "What if god was one of us"

 

[Dark Master]

What if god smoked Canabus?
Weird al ripoff of "What if god was one of us"

they are not kidding, and for you is good to not be kid....

 

[Zombie]

If there's anything stronger than facepalm, imagine me doing that...
What a completely counter-productive description of faith to those who seek to test or break it. The purpose of faith is having knowledge, and having the experience to trust that it at worst a dilution of fact.

Non-believers look upon Religious history as mere mythology and creative stories therefore, telling them that most of it is true and proven will not solve the argument.

What does evolution have to do with motivation? And it's a perfect example - non-sentient life (as far as we know, almost all of it) doesn't factor in motivation.

Computers excist to serve their creators, and their masters are the ones who are making them better, they aren't evolving.

 

[PurplePoot]

Non-believers look upon Religious history as mere mythology and creative stories therefore, telling them that most of it is true and proven will not solve the argument.

But it isn't true and proven until you show us that it is, and you have failed to do so as of yet.

Computers excist to serve their creators, and their masters are the ones who are making them better, they aren't evolving.

Last time I checked, you don't need motivation to be born... (And that is when mutations generally occur).

 

[Zombie]

But it isn't true and proven until you show us that it is, and you have failed to do so as of yet.

I'm not talking about creation now. Most Atheists disapprove the very excistence of Jesus Himself, even though there's historical evidence for that.

Last time I checked, you don't need motivation to be born... (And that is when mutations generally occur).

Your parents however, do need motivation to give you birth.