German Drops Mayan Skull, Endangers Mankind

Off Topic
201

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Wow people really do like to indulge themselves in mindless shit don’t they, next they will probably come up with an idea that an all powerful being who lives in the sky will save us.[/quote]

So, as science and computer technology evolve, it may become fully capable of building a very close model of the universe. We could input the rules of the universe, set up the initial conditions of the big bang, and hit run. With time compression we could literally simulate the origins of the world, watch life take shape, and even evolve into intelligent consciousness.

It would be interesting to see how many people on the simulated earth would deny the programmer who wrote the rules, the physicist who figured out the rules, the computer engineer who built the computer, and the creative force that dreamed them up, insisting instead, that an intelligent being creating their reality was equivalent to a spaghetti monster in the (simulated) sky.

You can argue against tenants and dogma of individual belief. However, Atheism is no more rationally based or logically derived than Theism. That is an actual fact.

I find that generally the people who are most outspoken and go to long lengths to claim rational and logical superiority are the same ones who actually lack critical thinking and virtually never critically examine the core of their own belief.
[/quote]

You have a misunderstanding of atheism as is evidenced by the statement, “However, Atheism is no more rationally based or logically derived than Theism. That is an actual fact.”

Atheism is not a belief system, atheism has no content. Atheism is the rejection of the idea that we should accept something as true without the evidence to support it. I would imagine you don’t believe in Thor, Apollo, or any of the other thousands of gods that have “existed” in human history. So, with respect to those gods you are an atheist. I simply go one go further in my atheism than you do (assuming you are a monotheist).

202

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

Whose path of enlightenment are you referencing? Because Jesus only offers one, huckleberry.[/quote]

I refuse to argue the specifics with someone who does not accept the premise. The best I can do is discuss the premise with you because that is the only area of common ground.[/quote]

You know, you can acknowledge that Christianity offered a new perspective on the whole deity thing without swallowing the whole son of God thing hook, line ands sinker. [/quote]

Yup. I know. But I also know that Boot there is just playing a baiting game. He is arguing the correct interpretation of a book he believes is unequivocally false. It puts the argument in a place where his beliefs go untouched and I have to try to race around putting out fires of ignorance on mine. I ain’t playing that game.[/quote]
This is the basic tenet of Christianity, have fun playing indignant with Chris though.

203

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

Whose path of enlightenment are you referencing? Because Jesus only offers one, huckleberry.[/quote]

I refuse to argue the specifics with someone who does not accept the premise. The best I can do is discuss the premise with you because that is the only area of common ground.[/quote]

You know, you can acknowledge that Christianity offered a new perspective on the whole deity thing without swallowing the whole son of God thing hook, line ands sinker. [/quote]

Yup. I know. But I also know that Boot there is just playing a baiting game. He is arguing the correct interpretation of a book he believes is unequivocally false. It puts the argument in a place where his beliefs go untouched and I have to try to race around putting out fires of ignorance on mine. I ain’t playing that game.[/quote]
This is the basic tenet of Christianity, have fun playing indignant with Chris though.[/quote]

The basic tenet of Christianity?

Lets hear it, and if its not the golden rule, prepare to defend yourself.

204

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

Whose path of enlightenment are you referencing? Because Jesus only offers one, huckleberry.[/quote]

I refuse to argue the specifics with someone who does not accept the premise. The best I can do is discuss the premise with you because that is the only area of common ground.[/quote]

You know, you can acknowledge that Christianity offered a new perspective on the whole deity thing without swallowing the whole son of God thing hook, line ands sinker. [/quote]

Yup. I know. But I also know that Boot there is just playing a baiting game. He is arguing the correct interpretation of a book he believes is unequivocally false. It puts the argument in a place where his beliefs go untouched and I have to try to race around putting out fires of ignorance on mine. I ain’t playing that game.[/quote]
This is the basic tenet of Christianity, have fun playing indignant with Chris though.[/quote]

The basic tenet of Christianity?

Lets hear it, and if its not the golden rule, prepare to defend yourself.[/quote]
Believe in Jesus, be eternally safe. That is Christianity. Just as it fits in to the original context of the conversation.

205

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

Whose path of enlightenment are you referencing? Because Jesus only offers one, huckleberry.[/quote]

I refuse to argue the specifics with someone who does not accept the premise. The best I can do is discuss the premise with you because that is the only area of common ground.[/quote]

You know, you can acknowledge that Christianity offered a new perspective on the whole deity thing without swallowing the whole son of God thing hook, line ands sinker. [/quote]

Yup. I know. But I also know that Boot there is just playing a baiting game. He is arguing the correct interpretation of a book he believes is unequivocally false. It puts the argument in a place where his beliefs go untouched and I have to try to race around putting out fires of ignorance on mine. I ain’t playing that game.[/quote]
This is the basic tenet of Christianity, have fun playing indignant with Chris though.[/quote]

The basic tenet of Christianity?

Lets hear it, and if its not the golden rule, prepare to defend yourself.[/quote]
Believe in Jesus, be eternally safe. That is Christianity. Just as it fits in to the original context of the conversation.[/quote]

And believing in Jesus means what to you?

206

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

Whose path of enlightenment are you referencing? Because Jesus only offers one, huckleberry.[/quote]

I refuse to argue the specifics with someone who does not accept the premise. The best I can do is discuss the premise with you because that is the only area of common ground.[/quote]

You know, you can acknowledge that Christianity offered a new perspective on the whole deity thing without swallowing the whole son of God thing hook, line ands sinker. [/quote]

Yup. I know. But I also know that Boot there is just playing a baiting game. He is arguing the correct interpretation of a book he believes is unequivocally false. It puts the argument in a place where his beliefs go untouched and I have to try to race around putting out fires of ignorance on mine. I ain’t playing that game.[/quote]
This is the basic tenet of Christianity, have fun playing indignant with Chris though.[/quote]

The basic tenet of Christianity?

Lets hear it, and if its not the golden rule, prepare to defend yourself.[/quote]
Believe in Jesus, be eternally safe. That is Christianity. Just as it fits in to the original context of the conversation.[/quote]

And believing in Jesus means what to you?[/quote]
Irrelevant. When you fail to follow any other teaching, including the golden rule, you are “safe”. It doesn’t matter. You’re forgiven and the “responsibility of your sin” isn’t your cross to bear, as it fits in to the original context of the conversation.

207

Anyways, I’m out to a Legacy tourney. Lata.

  • Scoot Your Boots *
208

Did you guys hear they found a forest in China that is over 295 million years old?!

209

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Did you guys hear they found a forest in China that is over 295 million years old?![/quote]

zing

210

Man’s incessant need to be “right” is wild, and probably speaks to our inherently self destructive nature. What was considered gospel a thousand years ago is now considered ludicrous, and what most believe now [Christians, Muslims, Snake handlers, whatever] will be laughed at and ridiculed a thousand years from now, provided we haven’t killed off our species. In the end, believe what you want. If it makes you happy and doesn’t hurt others, knock yourself out.

But, I will say this: People were considerably more naive then. Today, if a women claimed to be bearing the savior of mankind and was impregnated by “God” people would claim she cheated on her husband and his dumbass bought it, and her crazy ass kept up the ruse for the duration of his life and people would revolt against him for “blasphemy”. Remember, if a woman cheated on her husband then she was murdered. Is it out of the realm of possibility that an entire religious belief is based on the exploits of a whore who beat the sytem?

211

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Man’s incessant need to be “right” is wild, and probably speaks to our inherently self destructive nature. What was considered gospel a thousand years ago is now considered ludicrous, and what most believe now [Christians, Muslims, Snake handlers, whatever] will be laughed at and ridiculed a thousand years from now, provided we haven’t killed off our species. In the end, believe what you want. If it makes you happy and doesn’t hurt others, knock yourself out.

But, I will say this: People were considerably more naive then. Today, if a women claimed to be bearing the savior of mankind and was impregnated by “God” people would claim she cheated on her husband and his dumbass bought it, and her crazy ass kept up the ruse for the duration of his life and people would revolt against him for “blasphemy”. Remember, if a woman cheated on her husband then she was murdered. Is it out of the realm of possibility that an entire religious belief is based on the exploits of a whore who beat the sytem?[/quote]

212

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Man’s incessant need to be “right” is wild, and probably speaks to our inherently self destructive nature. What was considered gospel a thousand years ago is now considered ludicrous, and what most believe now [Christians, Muslims, Snake handlers, whatever] will be laughed at and ridiculed a thousand years from now, provided we haven’t killed off our species. In the end, believe what you want. If it makes you happy and doesn’t hurt others, knock yourself out.

But, I will say this: People were considerably more naive then. Today, if a women claimed to be bearing the savior of mankind and was impregnated by “God” people would claim she cheated on her husband and his dumbass bought it, and her crazy ass kept up the ruse for the duration of his life and people would revolt against him for “blasphemy”. Remember, if a woman cheated on her husband then she was murdered. Is it out of the realm of possibility that an entire religious belief is based on the exploits of a whore who beat the sytem?[/quote]

Well said.

213

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Man’s incessant need to be “right” is wild, and probably speaks to our inherently self destructive nature. What was considered gospel a thousand years ago is now considered ludicrous, and what most believe now [Christians, Muslims, Snake handlers, whatever] will be laughed at and ridiculed a thousand years from now, provided we haven’t killed off our species. In the end, believe what you want. If it makes you happy and doesn’t hurt others, knock yourself out.

But, I will say this: People were considerably more naive then. Today, if a women claimed to be bearing the savior of mankind and was impregnated by “God” people would claim she cheated on her husband and his dumbass bought it, and her crazy ass kept up the ruse for the duration of his life and people would revolt against him for “blasphemy”. Remember, if a woman cheated on her husband then she was murdered. Is it out of the realm of possibility that an entire religious belief is based on the exploits of a whore who beat the sytem?[/quote]
[/quote]

Haha, I’ve never seen that. That is fantastic.

214

I haven’t read all of the thread but I just want to say this. I don’t know if there’s a god, but I don’t need to follow a specific religion to believe there is something “good”. I know there is something good because there certainly is something evil. Just look at all the heinous shit happening on a daily basis. People that murder their own families, governments that murder their own people. Random acts of violence. I refuse to believe this is normal, human nature. It can’t be.

215

[quote]StevenF wrote:
I haven’t read all of the thread but I just want to say this. I don’t know if there’s a god, but I don’t need to follow a specific religion to believe there is something “good”. I know there is something good because there certainly is something evil. Just look at all the heinous shit happening on a daily basis. People that murder their own families, governments that murder their own people. Random acts of violence. I refuse to believe this is normal, human nature. It can’t be. [/quote]
Have you seen the animal kingdom in general?

216

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Wow people really do like to indulge themselves in mindless shit don’t they, next they will probably come up with an idea that an all powerful being who lives in the sky will save us.[/quote]

So, as science and computer technology evolve, it may become fully capable of building a very close model of the universe. We could input the rules of the universe, set up the initial conditions of the big bang, and hit run. With time compression we could literally simulate the origins of the world, watch life take shape, and even evolve into intelligent consciousness.

It would be interesting to see how many people on the simulated earth would deny the programmer who wrote the rules, the physicist who figured out the rules, the computer engineer who built the computer, and the creative force that dreamed them up, insisting instead, that an intelligent being creating their reality was equivalent to a spaghetti monster in the (simulated) sky.

You can argue against tenants and dogma of individual belief. However, Atheism is no more rationally based or logically derived than Theism. That is an actual fact.

I find that generally the people who are most outspoken and go to long lengths to claim rational and logical superiority are the same ones who actually lack critical thinking and virtually never critically examine the core of their own belief.
[/quote]

I was mostly directing my comment to people who believe that there is an all powerful, omnipotent and caring ‘god’ that watches over them, listens to their prayers and helps them succeed in life.

But yes, there could be a ‘creator’ and that the universe is some kind of computer program, fine. I can’t disprove it otherwise.

217

Well that is on par with being jewish…wait I am too late.

218

986×1280 78.8 KB

The truth is obvious.

219

Wow this forum turned into an awesome fucking discussion.

So when we get back to conversing about the Mayan skulls can someone pm me?

Thanks

220

No.