How did you type so coherently while drunk Yoyo? Responding to your arguments 1. To disprove a theory/postulate/law/whatever else, you must find evidence to contradict it. So far everything related to relegion except the existence of a divine being has been disproven. 2. Yoyo took care of this one 3. A lot of people are idiots. Next. 4. Do you still believe Aristotle and Ptolemy? 5. Completely true. Why don't we get rid of the moronic part and keep the good parts. 6. Just because there are infinite possibilities doesn't mean it does exist. There are an infinite number of integers, but there are plenty of real numbers not included in that. 7. I guess we agree on something...kind of...at least if I understand that correctly.
Bill O'Reilly has rendered all your arguments invalid. YouTube - Where did it all come from? If Mars has no Moon than you must Acquit...er Believe in God!
Your extreme lack of understanding astounds me. To postulate something that has no evidence is useless is my point. (In response to your first section) In response to science being biased I laugh in your face. You say it is bias, but what is the bias? In what way does it present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives? Never. It takes the answers that have been proven again and again and again and again to be true, and rejects those that are not. And it NEVER says "well we don't have a freakin clue how this could be so, so lets insert something which we dont have any reason to insert" Instead trying to find an answer that can be supported. If your interpretation of bias is looking at every alternative then rejecting those that can be disproven, then you have a serious issue of bad definitions, as that is an unbiased standpoint, whereas your position actively rejects any premise which could point away from it. And, as god is not a concept that is accessible to the scientific method apart from its contradictory holy texts, it HAS been disproven quite well in that those crappy books are the basis of their religions and have had their claims repeatedly disproven. Oh ya and in response to This is the most blatantly ridiculous thing I have ever read. Wanna jump off a cliff for me and then tell me how unreliable the gravitational theory is? How about your computer? Wanna know how and why it works? Guess what, that answer is in SCIENCE. Because science WORKS. It has created: Medicine Computers Automobiles TV Phones X-Ray Imaging Space Travel Air Travel Robotics Knowledge of DNA, sub-atomic particles etc This as opposed to religion which gives us nothing. There have been NO technological, medicinal, biological, or otherwise useful information gained from religion. EDIT: AHAHAHAAHAHA bill o Reilly is so ignorant. We know how the moon, the planets and stars are formed. AND the other planets DO have moons! PLURAL!(mars has two) jupiter has many many more (around 60 I think) We know why life is possible here and not on the other planets.... [br][/br]Edited by merge: This is a bit weak, of course there are bits that refer to real events, however none of the mystical can be observed; we dont find evidence of a 4000 year old earth, we dont find that a massive flood killed everything, then all the species reappeared and went out from mt ararat after noah's flood. Every story bases somewhat on fact, its just the way we are. Just because Harry Potter uses london as a setting, and sometimes uses real places etc doesnt mean harry potter exists.
Well obviously. The difference between Harry Potter and stories in the Bible is that Harry Potter (outside of London) has no non-fictional value. The Bible tells stories that aren't supernatural that can be documented, and these are over thousands of years as opposed to a Teenager's life (Harry Potter). As for the 4,000 year old Earth...well to nitpick it would be 6,000 if you subscribe to that theory. But there are debates over that even among Christians. God says numerous times that a Day is like 1,000 years or something to that affect. Some people wonder if the "Seven Day Creation" was actually millions of years, but to God it was like seven days and that's how it was written.
1) Harry Potter may as well be just as credible as the bible, much like pastafarianism. It's based upon the fundamental values of friendship and heroism, much like the many doctrines found in the bible. 2) What? The bible has plenty of supernatural occurrences. Giant floods, burning bushes, and oceans splitting apart. Not only that, but the bible has been rewritten so many times that it can hardly be considered "Documentation." I've heard this argument many times before, and to me it's a cop-out. Religions consistently change their views and ideals to help fit the modern society. Many churches are accepting the idea of evolution, so long as God played a role in its happening. It all eventually rebounds back to the final theory of a divine creator, which even to many agnostic/atheists, equates to the idea of 'Nature' or simply 'The Universe.' This idea is similar to Naturalistic Pantheism, where essentially, Nature and the Universe are God. There is no divine being, because that would exist outside of logic, but more of an all-encompassing force of nature.
I was referring to the stories that aren't supernatural, not saying that there are no supernatural stories. Assuming the latter is obviously a bad idea. But don't we do the same with science as we gain more understanding? As new tests and theories come about they lead us to new conclusions. Why can't our increasing knowledge flow into our understanding of religious texts as well?
To and extent, yes. In science however, we don't accept theories until they can make accurate predictions, not just any theory that explains the results of an experiment. The idea that seven days was really a few million years. That's like saying because I picked a random person off the street and his hair was blue, everyone's hair must be blue.
The video was pretty cool, I liked the style it was done in. Had a 1950's educational feel to it, and Im a sucker for the 50's