- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chromosome Study: All Men Can Be Traced to One Man
Posted on 2/8/14 at 8:25 am to catholictigerfan
Posted on 2/8/14 at 8:25 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
There must be a reason for it's existence either inside itself or outside of it.
Why must there be a reason for the universe's existence? Not trolling, I would seriously like a reason as to why there must be one.
1
Posted on 2/8/14 at 8:38 am to iAmBatman
real quick
if something just popped out of reality, for example a rabbit randomly appears out of thin air on your desk. Do you ask oh hi mr rabbit you must have gotten here for no reason what so ever. This would be an absurd explanation and no-one would agree to it. If we don't say oh a rabbit just randomly appeared here for no reason and we ask why is it here? Than why don't we ask it about the universe.
I know this analogy is a little strange but just stay with me. What I'm trying to show is that it is a standard part of nature to ask why something is here. The explanation it is just here for no reason is absurd. I could give you millions of analogy about this and they would all lead to the same conclusion we always ask why did this thing get here.
I know there is even some science that claims that there are some particles that do come into existence randomly and out of thin air. Now would a good scientist answer that question with oh it just randomly appeared here and we don't need to explain how it got here. No scientist ask the questions why did this particle randomly appear here with no apparent cause.
If the universe did truly pop into existence than we must ask why did it do this?
there are a multitude of possible answers but one of them can't be oh it just came here randomly we don't have to explain why.
if something just popped out of reality, for example a rabbit randomly appears out of thin air on your desk. Do you ask oh hi mr rabbit you must have gotten here for no reason what so ever. This would be an absurd explanation and no-one would agree to it. If we don't say oh a rabbit just randomly appeared here for no reason and we ask why is it here? Than why don't we ask it about the universe.
I know this analogy is a little strange but just stay with me. What I'm trying to show is that it is a standard part of nature to ask why something is here. The explanation it is just here for no reason is absurd. I could give you millions of analogy about this and they would all lead to the same conclusion we always ask why did this thing get here.
I know there is even some science that claims that there are some particles that do come into existence randomly and out of thin air. Now would a good scientist answer that question with oh it just randomly appeared here and we don't need to explain how it got here. No scientist ask the questions why did this particle randomly appear here with no apparent cause.
If the universe did truly pop into existence than we must ask why did it do this?
there are a multitude of possible answers but one of them can't be oh it just came here randomly we don't have to explain why.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 8:44 am to catholictigerfan
quote:
there are a multitude of possible answers but one of them can't be oh it just came here randomly we don't have to explain why.
Doesn't a higher power still have that 'where did it come from' problem too?
Posted on 2/8/14 at 8:51 am to MagicCityBlazer
mmm..no
Posted on 2/8/14 at 8:56 am to Roger Klarvin
What a perfect example of a obfuscating pompous arse, which is fairly typical of those of his philisophical bent.
Nowhere did I say Lenin was the first athiest. I said he was the original, as in a model used by billions all over the world.(grab your dictionary and you will understand original has a meaning other than first)
Atheism is the underlying principle in a philosphy that currently enslaves billions. China, North Korea, Cuba to name a few.
Dont have time this morning, as my 7 year old has ball games, but I will be back to address your twisted view of the world, you can rest assured.
Nowhere did I say Lenin was the first athiest. I said he was the original, as in a model used by billions all over the world.(grab your dictionary and you will understand original has a meaning other than first)
Atheism is the underlying principle in a philosphy that currently enslaves billions. China, North Korea, Cuba to name a few.
Dont have time this morning, as my 7 year old has ball games, but I will be back to address your twisted view of the world, you can rest assured.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 9:17 am to mattloc
quote:
Nowhere did I say Lenin was the first athiest. I said he was the original, as in a model used by billions all over the world.(grab your dictionary and you will understand original has a meaning other than first)
ah...try using that dictionary.
Original would mean first ;-).
quote:
Atheism is the underlying principle in a philosphy that currently enslaves billions. China, North Korea, Cuba to name a few.
uh...okay. Once again I don't think you really understand the meaning of atheism. But give the lighting bolts of truth you are tossing around. I'm not really surprised.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 9:29 am to asurob1
When used as a noun Webster says original has this meaning......something serving as a model or basis for imatations or copies
The lightning bolts Im throwing around are simply employment of the tactics used to criticze religion on this board for the 5 years or so Ive been reading here....I am all for civil discourse, but that is unrealistic with certain people on this board who lack the intelligence to formulate an argument without attacking the Christian faith.
My understanding of Athiesm is sufficient for me understand the subtle, insidious nature of its purpose
The lightning bolts Im throwing around are simply employment of the tactics used to criticze religion on this board for the 5 years or so Ive been reading here....I am all for civil discourse, but that is unrealistic with certain people on this board who lack the intelligence to formulate an argument without attacking the Christian faith.
My understanding of Athiesm is sufficient for me understand the subtle, insidious nature of its purpose
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 9:31 am
Posted on 2/8/14 at 9:31 am to mattloc
quote:
My understanding of Athiesm is sufficient for me understand the subtle, insidious nature of its purpose
Atheism is just the lack of believe in a god claim.
It's not an international organization spreading the gospel.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 9:38 am to MagicCityBlazer
That may be true for most on this board, but many of their premises spring from those who propose abolition and even eradication of religion....as I said earlier in this thread google query.
" Athiesm and the abolition of religion"
There are several atheist/ agnostics whom I respect on this board. Others are simply here for shock value.
" Athiesm and the abolition of religion"
There are several atheist/ agnostics whom I respect on this board. Others are simply here for shock value.
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 9:44 am
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:13 am to mattloc
quote:
The lightning bolts Im throwing around are simply employment of the tactics used to criticze religion on this board for the 5 years or so Ive been reading here....I am all for civil discourse, but that is unrealistic with certain people on this board who lack the intelligence to formulate an argument without attacking the Christian faith.
One doesn't really need much more then logic to attack any religious faith.
But one does need to use intelligence to recognize that arguing with the "faithful" is the same as arguing with a brick wall.
Doesn't matter if you use logic and reason...the faithful have blind faith ;-). Which is the reason so many televangelists are rich.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:14 am to mattloc
quote:
My understanding of Athiesm is sufficient for me understand the subtle, insidious nature of its purpose
The fact that you continue to confuse atheism with communism tells me that you really don't know what you are talking about at all.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:17 am to mattloc
quote:
That may be true for most on this board, but many of their premises spring from those who propose abolition and even eradication of religion....as I said earlier in this thread google query.
" Athiesm and the abolition of religion"
Most people don't care one way or another about any religion. I for one am happy that the faithful have something they believe in. Most of us will happily let you do your own thing..right up to the point when you start meddling in their lives and trying to force your religion on them via government intervention.
At that point I am happy to start shooting holes in any religion. You are very focused on yours...and try to pretend there are several dozen other ones out there.
But they are all fairly easy to poke holes in.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:18 am to mattloc
Many atheists happen to feel threatened by the rampant indoctrination of children by religious parents and want to see that stopped.
Are some atheists assholes? Absolutely.
That said religious folks aren't entirely innocent either.
Are some atheists assholes? Absolutely.
That said religious folks aren't entirely innocent either.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:23 am to asurob1
now the Televangelist are definitely something we can agree on 
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:25 am to asurob1
the confusion is actually yours...... athiesm is the cornerstone of communism.... but since I am on a cell phone.. at my son's game I will have to address this later
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:30 am to MagicCityBlazer
quote:
Many atheists happen to feel threatened by the rampant indoctrination of children by religious parents and want to see that stopped.
Actually, most of us don't care how you indoctrinate your own kids as long as they aren't screwing with our kids.
It's when you start telling us how we should be indoctrinating our own kids where we have issue.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:31 am to mattloc
quote:
now the Televangelist are definitely something we can agree on
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:35 am to mattloc
quote:
athiesm is the cornerstone of communism....
....No.
just no.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 11:19 am to mattloc
quote:
Nowhere did I say Lenin was the first athiest. I said he was the original, as in a model used by billions all over the world.(grab your dictionary and you will understand original has a meaning other than first)
Atheism is the underlying principle in a philosphy that currently enslaves billions. China, North Korea, Cuba to name a few.
Even Jesus can't help you dude.
Wow
Posted on 2/8/14 at 11:33 am to MagicCityBlazer
The simple fact that an argument involving religion breaks out anytime there is new research and discoveries in evolution or in this case genetics just shows me that religion should not be brought up in our schools. The arguments brought up from the religious side are old, outdated and are harmful.It only shows that you have know idea what you are talking about. Even if you don't bring up God in you argument it is easy to pick you out because they are the same old lines that are used to try and poke holes in evolution. The concept of evolution and genetics are simple to understand if you take the religious blinders off. I know this is my first post and it might come off as an insult but this is getting old and it really makes you sound ignorant because you do not know anything about the subject.
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News