Quantum mechanics does not involve teleportation, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Read about it. Just because it's complicated and seems counter-intuitive, that doesn't necessitate the existence of a deity. I believe you are mixing up the concept of teleportation with the probabilities inherit with quantum mechanic's descriptions of the sub-atomic world. For example, an electron can actually be described as both a particle (classical physics) and as a probability wave function (quantum mechanics). The wave function describes the probabilistic locations of the electron (commonly known as the electron orbitals). However, because the electron is being described with probabilities, it is entirely possible for the electron to move in a manner that seems like teleportation in the eye of classical physics. I don't think I can really do the subject justice without spending more time than I'm willing to. If you really want to know what it's about, take some chemistry or physics classes in college. As Arthur C. Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Ur an idiot. A "particular belief" can be anything. Anyone that shoots it down is a lesser people. How is that in anyway prejudice. It can be any belief. Go screw urself at ur middle school u dibshit.
I am arguing Christian beliefs because Im familar with those beliefs it would be stupid for me to argue over other religions when im not fluent in their beliefs sure with some research I could understand them better than I do now but I would still not fully understand them since I was not raised from a child with them. Me arguing over anouther religions beliefs would be biased seeing as I was never apart of them. Christianity I was a part of so thats one that I can argue about.
Try to look at what you are saying logically. You are saying that anyone who shoots down a particular belief is a lesser person than the person believing the particular belief. It should only take a couple of examples to prove that thinking incorrect. Certain Mormons believe in polygamy and naturally there are groups of people that want to shoot that particular belief down with a tomahawk missile. There is an organization in San Francisco called NAMBLA(North American Man Boy Love Association) that believes the laws regarding sexual contact between adults and children should be loosened. Of course people will step up to shoot down their belief, as they should. If you feel like your belief is being attacked unfairly then fight back using reasoned arguments. That's what a debate is.
I guess that is a valid point. But that was really not the point of my statement. I was only defending that I was not being prejudice.
You are being prejudiced against people who debate against your religion. We're not saying "ur dum go jerk off in an alleyway". We are discussing -not attacking- religion.
I haven't been prejudice at all. If I said I hated someone who was non-christian I specified and said someone who is an anti-christian like I specified. Think. Not everything in life is "prejudice".
Just to be clear you're now saying that Nitrous is anti-Christian? Are you sure you're not a slowpoke? You're casting confusion on me.
This kid is a smart cookie. First of all, if I said I hated someone it was a general group. Secondly, I never said I hated him. 3rd of all, that is the stupidest and most trivial accusation. Don't try to pick fights that have moved past you. You are too uneducated to come in here like you know everything and that you are the surpreme ruler of this thread. Some of the others I can actually respect (opinion wise). You, however, I can and will never respect. You don't know what you are talking about when you talk; You also misinterpret everything I say by carelesness or because you want a reason to prove me wrong. Also, that last line was gay. 0/10 - P.S. One more line before I pull out Australian jokes
I apologize zombiecow11, but when you type, I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to say. The lack of grammar completely destroys whatever point you are trying to make. I have nothing against you, I have something against bad grammar though. If you would please correct your last statement so that it uses correct grammar, spelling etc. This would greatly allow me to refute your claims, because from what I have seen, you are basically saying, if someone is against my beliefs, they are automatically against me, which is quite contrary sir. While we may not agree with you, but we don't have anything against you. Sure it may seem like we are targeting Christianity, but that's because most people arguing against are Christian, so we have no choice but to refute their claims. The point of debate is to go against what your opponent is saying, and make it so your claim is better. If you cannot handle those simple statements, I think it is best you leave, before you receive more infractions.
LEARN2TYPE you don't need the U's or any of that crap, it makes it seem like you aren't putting much or any thought or effort into your argument anyway, now to go on-topic personally, I'd like to believe that there's a god... I am a tad skeptical however, but I do have faith, and tolerance of people who mock religion, like mah buddeh randlescandal.. what I DON'T have tolerance for is people like zombiecow, who provide little to no valid arguments and basically call anyone who tries to debate that point "a lesser person" I'll admit, I have no evidence to support my belief in god.. it's just how I was raised, even with a slight mutation (catholic to agnostic) I'd just like to think that something or someone out there is looking after me and helping me make good choices I respect the opinions of the Jews, Muslims, Christians, Polytheists, Atheists, and even most Rastafarian, but what I don't tolerate, is intolerant people (lol for irony) also, the slowpoke joke was awesome 10/10 I actually lol'd
Nice use of 'U' and 'R' in a sentence about lack of education. Also, your use of homosexuality as an insult is prejudice.
It's OK Scarecrow, I am. You see as a general consequence of being anti-stupid you are indelibly forced to reconcile to yourself that you are anti-Christian. But understand when I say anti-Christian I mean the current Christianity that pervades the world. There's no such thing as honesty and nobility anymore. Those were fulfilled long ago. The New Testament used to be a beacon of light for the Middle East to abandon archaic practices and come together and proclaim that god loves you no matter who you are born of and no matter how many goats (or any) you sacrifice. The god of the New Testament is special by many standards (for the Middle East) but unfortunately the idea died long ago. We have vindictive, judgmental, prejudiced and hateful god or should I say flock that executes every imaginary order god gives them while simultaneously telling you he no longer interferes like he did 2,000 years ago. Have you ever found that funny? God won't speak from the heavens but as soon as their is a vague tragedy that has even the slightest bit of an upside he was the one responsible for harboring the good and keeping it in this world. All sense, reason, and cohesion was lost long ago. Now its a hodge-podge of theology that hardly knows which was is up. Where is god? Where did he go? Was he meek and mild like Jesus or cruel and hateful like Yahweh and Elohim? Was he kind and compassionate and forgiving or was he vindictive like the gods of old? I respect very much what Jesus did for the Middle East but I cannot respect Christianity for what they did to Jesus and his message (or rather what they didn't do with his message) and I cannot respect Christians (on the basis of their belief, I can respect them in more general senses but not for their religion).
When you hear about crazy religious zealots picketing the funerals of gay men with Aids it's pretty damn clear that religion tends to attract the wrong crowd. I sometimes wonder what would have happened to those people had they never found religion. Would they be in prison, having released their hateful aggression another way? Or maybe they'd just be ordinary people going about their ordinary lives. The practice of telling people that if they care enough they get to live forever (in heaven) works in theory, but any philosophy based lies can never succeed. So sayeth Zod.
Not a natural consequence, but the opposite. Religion doesn't make people crazy, rather crazy people are susceptible to religion.
He's right, the big bang theory states basically that there was a massive energy source pretty much the size of a pinhead, well, where did it come from, and what caused it to implode, the energy supposedly built up, well what caused it to build up if that exact amount of energy was all of existence at that time. So even if it did build up, why did it do it at the moment it did if it had existed forever before that point, why not earlier or later, some variables or factors must have decided the exact moment the universe would be created, but science clearly dictates it was all of existence so no variables are possible, so therefore, you have yet another paradox that science cannot and will never be able to explain, If you can counter debate that with real evidence and no theories then maybe i will believe science might possibly be correct. ALL that i have said jut now comes solely out of LOGIC AND REASON nothing about god or miracles or magic, you have to admit that this s extremely logical and reasonable.
Why would it matter when it occurred? How do you know that the energy was just chilling there for a long time? If it built up like you said, then it would of course take time; especially an explosion of that magnitude. And why do we suddenly need to know all the answers to be right? Why is it one if the other answer hasn't been found yet? Ah nevermind. Godditit.
The big bang theory does not state what existed prior to the events described by the theory or how that came to exist. It only states that there was a immensely dense point from which all matter in our universe expanded from. I must argue against your demand for the retort to show "real evidence and no theories." In science, theories are a well-supported explanation of the natural universe and therefore are considered very valuable in supporting an argument. There is also substantial evidence for the big bang found in the cosmic background radiation permeating the universe.
I'm sure thousands of years ago humans wondered how it rained, how objects fell to the ground, etc. Logically speaking they were probably saying it was magic, similarly how when something cannot be explained many run to a God for their reason for explaining what happened. Now you may quote a book thousands of years old to prove your point, scientists are gathering massive amounts of research to find out how our universe was formed. And after a lot of research, they came up with a THEORY that could have explained how this began. Looking at a stars life cycle, I'm sure they were able to say that the universe probably has a similar life cycle of death, extreme collapse, and at a single moment a large explosion spreading uncountable amounts of particles skyrocketing outward. Of course the only problem is where that came from, but if you start to look into the 4th and 5th dimensions, you realize that time is not necessarily beginning and end, like we see. Specifically in the 4th dimension time is just a line, and is viewed that way, rather than a point like we see it. Now this may be difficult to imagine, but it's possible. I believe the mass was always there, and there is no specific date of creation, but there was a date of explosion. While my theory may seem strange, I believe this is how it occurs, of course this is my own theory on the situation. I believe fully in the big bang theory for creation of the internet, but I believe in my 4th dimension theory for creation of the mass in the big bang.