When Christians use Science to prove Atheist wrong.

[Amotekun]

Duns God is the the Supreme Scientist. Imagine what a human could do if they could utilize the full potential of the mind...

Magic, miracles, supernatural manifestations are only sciences that the human mind cannot comprehend yet.

S.C. Clarke a famous science fiction author wrote about subjects that presently are facts today.

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

 

[a.mann]

how can a opinion be dumb...

when it's obvious you pulling out your ass?

 

[nex gin]

Did this bitch really compare the grand canyon to a sandbox?

Indeed she did.....

Bible Thumpers (1) Atheists (0)

smdh.......

 

[VIBE]

Now all it's missing is a chicken evolving into a shark and language being in your DNA.

 

[BK Product]

explain 2 Me how a opinion can be wrong.... lol

In my opinion the sky is made of marbles.....

 

[Bodhi]

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of God and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.

Science does not necessarily shit on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets shitted on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.

Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a god doing god things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes

Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in god than we would without it.

 

[judahxulu]

The Bible nev er says in the beginning there were only Adam and Eve.

Go have a look.

In Genesis 1 God creates mankind.

Then in Genesis 2 he rests, then after he rested does he create Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were created on the eigth day, which we know was roughly 6,000 years ago. We know this because the bible gives us Adam's geneaology, but we also know that the earth is much older than that. Thus Adam was not the first man.

The trees in the garden of Eden represent other nations. The Bible explains this to us.

It says for example that the Seders of Lebanon were in Eden.

It says also that the Pharaoh was in Eden. etc. etc.

Ezekiel 31:9

I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

Trees do not feel envy

There were other nations on the earth that were not in Eden.

This is where Cain found a wife and built his cities. If yu do not understand the bible it is because the holy spirit has not shoen you the truth.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1747560/pg1

lmao there's so much wrong with this quote....ugh time for work

actually...i read, write and speak hebrew and thats exactly what the bible says in its original hebrew form. both sides are wrong and full of shit. notice the argument is allways about shome shit thats neither here nor there. how things began, age of the earth, meaningless equations etc. but when it comes to solving what is here and now without causeing problems later nobody has shit to say of any substance. religious people and atheist can kiss my ass if they have nothing to say other than shit about a past or future that we have no direct incfluence over or experience with. niggas talking about proving this or that. youre fucking dumb. you cant prove or disprove god anywhere but in your own fucking mind and heart. all this shit is a waste of energy. what the hell happened to people having a difference of opinion and actuall demonstrating the benefits of what they on? stupid humans really dont get it......

 

[judahxulu]

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of God and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.

Science does not necessarily shit on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets shitted on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.

Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a god doing god things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes

Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in god than we would without it.

Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.

 

[Bodhi]

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of God and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.

Science does not necessarily shit on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets shitted on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.

Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a god doing god things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes

Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in god than we would without it.

Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.

I don't believe in classical theism. I don't believe you do either. What you and I believe is moreso a higher force or vibration than I higher "being". Something like the Tao in Taoism for example. Correct me if I'm wrong. The stance on a belief in a higher intervening spirit man is what I don't agree with. You don't have any reason to defend his stance if yours also disagrees with it. You're coming from a different perspective

 

[GSonII]

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of God and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.

Science does not necessarily shit on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets shitted on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.

Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a god doing god things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes

Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in god than we would without it.

Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.

Sounds like some type of mind elevation or self help stuff to me. Sounds good though.

 

[judahxulu]

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of God and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.

Science does not necessarily shit on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets shitted on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.

Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a god doing god things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes

Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in god than we would without it.

Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.

Sounds like some type of mind elevation or self help stuff to me. Sounds good though.

LOL.maybe so but thats what I got out of reading the bible in its original hebrew form. its different....

 

[judahxulu]

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of God and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.

Science does not necessarily shit on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets shitted on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.

Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a god doing god things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes

Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in god than we would without it.

Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.

I don't believe in classical theism. I don't believe you do either. What you and I believe is moreso a higher force or vibration than I higher "being". Something like the Tao in Taoism for example. Correct me if I'm wrong. The stance on a belief in a higher intervening spirit man is what I don't agree with. You don't have any reason to defend his stance if yours also disagrees with it. You're coming from a different perspective

a "higher intervening spirit man"? u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship. my stance is every man has the potential to acheive that state. but att the same time, the usage of this archetype as a magic pill or as an ego defense is in my opinion bogus and supergay.

 

[In Your Moms Room]

 

[In Your Moms Room]

 

[Bodhi]

I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.

God to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of retard playing in mud.

For science to shit on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.

What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of God and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.

Science does not necessarily shit on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets shitted on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.

Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a god doing god things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes

Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in god than we would without it.

Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.

I don't believe in classical theism. I don't believe you do either. What you and I believe is moreso a higher force or vibration than I higher "being". Something like the Tao in Taoism for example. Correct me if I'm wrong. The stance on a belief in a higher intervening spirit man is what I don't agree with. You don't have any reason to defend his stance if yours also disagrees with it. You're coming from a different perspective

a "higher intervening spirit man"? u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship. my stance is every man has the potential to acheive that state. but att the same time, the usage of this archetype as a magic pill or as an ego defense is in my opinion bogus and supergay.

No I mean like the idea that "god" is a old guy with a beard in the clouds pulling strings and making shit happen

 

[Bodhi]

u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship.

This is true though. The Buddha explains how to reach this state of enlightenment, which is Nirvana, thru meditation and applying the four noble truths to personal life.

 

[judahxulu]

u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship.

This is true though. The Buddha explains how to reach this state of enlightenment, which is Nirvana, thru meditation and applying the four noble truths to personal life.

martyr figures shaped after ones ego cloud the view of the second noble truth without which the other 3 cant be fully realized. if u feel someone has suffered for u then there is no need to seek the 8fold path. thereby ones vision is all maya (illusion) and rught view and right intention are aborted there.

 

[Bodhi]

nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a god or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped

 

[alissowack]

Maybe it is just me...but I think that there is a line in which religion and science just cannot cross. Disproving the claims of science doesn't mean it is safe to point to a deity by default...nor does disproving religion through trials and test determines the finality of a deity existing. If science is going to be wrong, then it should be wrong on the grounds of science. That also goes for religion and its grounds.

And I would like to think that the existence of a deity shouldn't conjure up the notion of who is right or wrong. I believe the issue is about life and death especially if that deity is responsible for why there is life. If I am right, then I'm right. If I am wrong, then I'm wrong. However, I would have to be alive to be either one.

 

[Bodhi]

@alissowack.. wtf.. either it's too early for me in the morning right now or you're just not making any sense at all in what you're saying. Science is strictly emperical observation. You can prove a deity doesn't exist by testing claims of the believers in the deity we're referring to. Depending on a believer's description of a particular entity, we can use those descriptions to either prove or disprove its existence. Like for instance, if I were to tell you I believed in a talking plastic water bottle (I don't know... random), you could disprove that because a talking water bottle is illogical and doesn't make any sense by what we know of what goes on around us. If I believed that the water bottle I have sitting right next to me was able to talk to me, I would be wrong. The descriptions of God given by Christianity, Judaism and Islam for example allow his existence to be disproved because it's logically impossible. however, that doesn't rule out the existence of some other type of god or godhead. it just rules out the existence of the god as those religions describe