~Science and God~

Post a reply

:
In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you enter both of the words displayed into the text field underneath.
Smilies
:pray: :sleep: :D :alien51: :) :mrgreen: :wink: :love: :obsessed: :| :( :twisted: :evil: :scary: :o :dunno: :? 8-) :hmmm: :shock: :flop: :top: :x :P :oops: :cry: :?: :idea: :arrow: :!: :nails: :look: :rtft: :roll: :ohno: :hell: :vomit: :lol: :think: :headscratch: :clapper: :bang; :censored: :badair: :help: :owned: :nope: :nwo: :geek: :ugeek: :robot: :alien: :mrcool: :ghost: :sunny: :peep: :yell: :banana: :dancing: :hugging: :bullshit: :cheers: :shooting: :hiho:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is OFF
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: ~Science and God~

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by SamueltheLion » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:42 am

america: land of opportunity
(opp [war] ort [place] unity (e pluribus unum: diversity combining to unity)

or opportunists? (ruthless people who rape the real rowers & sowers?)

you decide!

be part of the kennedy solution ;)

alternatively: opp or tunity war or unity, through music???

If a nation you would mend first the arts you must descend,
from heaven's high horse,
let it fly the right course,
through the needle's eye, and yet
not through the pie in the sky,
but the pi phi fly on the earth!

:P

can you READ music?


oh and back at you iwanci: i wanna see! obi iwanc ken obi? ;)

your enemies enemy is your friend, so, decide:
is your enemy humanity,
or is it the ego which is secretly causing all the problems FOR humanity?

my enemys enemy is my friend:
and my friend is humanity,
it is the ego-geo
earth-heart which has been tainted by forces unknown,
which must be fixed and put in its rightful place (first abased, then exalted).

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by Iwanci » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:04 am

Mr Mule, I would like to think I have no enemies, no-one hates me as I hate no-one (you included). One great ability we all posses is the ability to disagree, and as you can tell, I exercise mine a fair bit. Not because I like to, but it’s just the way my brain works, or doesn’t work. I like to question things.

Facts are Facts Mr McNuggets... I was told that more than 90% of scientists believe in the existence of a superior creator. I simply asked for some proof of this supposed fact, fair enough I would think? Giving me a new stat of 2/3rds or +76% of another profession is a stupid and ridiculous argument. For a start 2/3rds is never going to be greater than 90%. Secondly +76% is likewise not +90%. Combining the 2 will again NOT give you more than 90%. So, in answer to your question, NO, it does not equate to +90%. If I am reading you right and you are being serious, I will state that you did not study mathematics, the other thing is that you lack a logical thought process. If you were agreeing with me, fine.. I like it when that happens, and it is ok for me to be right now and then. READ the article you linked on your post.... then tell me what it says..

So, when stating facts, do ONE simple thing.. back them up... or simply stat that it is not a fact, just a random sample, an opportunistic and biased one at that.

NEXT....

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by SamueltheLion » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:32 pm

hey iwanci, i love when people disagree with me.

a true enemy is a rare thing.

you are not my enemy though.

and i don't have massive ego problems.

peace

oh and good points about the facts thingy thing. what is a fact really ring-a-ding-ding?

prove it to yourself. doesn't matter WTF anyone else says, k? peace :)

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by Mrmcnuggets » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:20 pm

iwanci wrote:My friends let's take a deep breath and look at the stated FACTS shall we?

I never stated that scientists were not believers in higher beings.. I do recall however some dimwit that likes to state facts as stating that statistics have shown that 90% (or over) of scientists believe in a higher being??? So, in keeping with the FACTS as you call them, I simply asked for the proof of this statement..

Citing a bunch of scientists names and what they stated only shows that these scientists were believers, it does not prove that 90% of scientists are believers..

Yet again, religious nutters calling on facts to back their claims and yet again relying on scant bits of information to try and prove a falsehood. Let us assume for one second that 1000 well known scientists did in fact state that they were believers in a higher more powerful being. (we all know that no-one surveyed 1000 scientists don’t we?) then....
Firstly, let’s qualify what they refer to as a higher more powerful being? Are they referring to a ‘creator’? or simply the possibility of the existence of a more powerful life form in our universe? A minor detail to a religious person trying to state evidence, but one that often gets overlooked.
Secondly, just because a scientist may believe in a higher more powerful being, does not mean that there actually is one, unless of course that scientist can prove it? Naturally, again lets not let the facts get in the way.
Thirdly, even if 1000 scientists stated their belief, do you think the world only has 1000 scientists living on it? I would suggest there are more likely 10,000 to 100,000 scientists living on the planet as we speak, in various scientific capacities. Do you think all of them were surveyed? Or do we rely on strategic random samples to be the definitive of what ALL the scientists think? 90% of ALL scientists was the claim was it not?
Fourthly... let’s not even begin to start to evaluate the sample data shall we for inconsistencies, flawed samples, objectivity of questioning, skewing etc etc ..

My point is a simple one.. if you stat FACT.. show the fact or just say you ‘think’ or you ‘believe that’..
Now..show me the money!! Don’t manifest your lies and engross your ego’s.. state a fact, back it up.. show me the survey of all scientists on this planet and 90% or more agreeing that there is a creator, and I WILL BELIEVE YOU... naturally, I will still not believe them, because, unlike many sheeple, I do not follow the heard... and this is another simple fact that religious people ignore.. we love anyone who agrees with us don’t we? And we damn them if they disagree, watch your backs my friends, because those greater than you in your circles feel likewise and have their eyes on you... Ego can only feed off one thing.. another man’s weakness, and there again is another flaw in your mindsets...


I am nothing of a highly religious person lmfao.
http://www.livescience.com/379-scientis ... pline.html
scientists-do-prove-there-is-a-creator-god-t55827.html?hilit=Scientists%20believe%20in%20God
2/3rds + the dead notables (who have very well built the such defined structure of the universe and how it operates, or how cells work, or how life in general works.) +76% of doctors is more than 90%, No?

Good Jorb.. :bang;
:cheers:

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by Iwanci » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:04 pm

My friends let's take a deep breath and look at the stated FACTS shall we?

I never stated that scientists were not believers in higher beings.. I do recall however some dimwit that likes to state facts as stating that statistics have shown that 90% (or over) of scientists believe in a higher being??? So, in keeping with the FACTS as you call them, I simply asked for the proof of this statement..

Citing a bunch of scientists names and what they stated only shows that these scientists were believers, it does not prove that 90% of scientists are believers..

Yet again, religious nutters calling on facts to back their claims and yet again relying on scant bits of information to try and prove a falsehood. Let us assume for one second that 1000 well known scientists did in fact state that they were believers in a higher more powerful being. (we all know that no-one surveyed 1000 scientists don’t we?) then....
Firstly, let’s qualify what they refer to as a higher more powerful being? Are they referring to a ‘creator’? or simply the possibility of the existence of a more powerful life form in our universe? A minor detail to a religious person trying to state evidence, but one that often gets overlooked.
Secondly, just because a scientist may believe in a higher more powerful being, does not mean that there actually is one, unless of course that scientist can prove it? Naturally, again lets not let the facts get in the way.
Thirdly, even if 1000 scientists stated their belief, do you think the world only has 1000 scientists living on it? I would suggest there are more likely 10,000 to 100,000 scientists living on the planet as we speak, in various scientific capacities. Do you think all of them were surveyed? Or do we rely on strategic random samples to be the definitive of what ALL the scientists think? 90% of ALL scientists was the claim was it not?
Fourthly... let’s not even begin to start to evaluate the sample data shall we for inconsistencies, flawed samples, objectivity of questioning, skewing etc etc ..

My point is a simple one.. if you stat FACT.. show the fact or just say you ‘think’ or you ‘believe that’..
Now..show me the money!! Don’t manifest your lies and engross your ego’s.. state a fact, back it up.. show me the survey of all scientists on this planet and 90% or more agreeing that there is a creator, and I WILL BELIEVE YOU... naturally, I will still not believe them, because, unlike many sheeple, I do not follow the heard... and this is another simple fact that religious people ignore.. we love anyone who agrees with us don’t we? And we damn them if they disagree, watch your backs my friends, because those greater than you in your circles feel likewise and have their eyes on you... Ego can only feed off one thing.. another man’s weakness, and there again is another flaw in your mindsets...

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by Mrmcnuggets » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:53 pm

samuelthemule wrote:thanks for typing that out nuggets, good stuff :)

nice links, enough for anyone who really wants to know to see.

fact is, everyone has "faith" and "belief" or -HYPOTHESIS- and then goes on to prove it, at which point it becomes knowledge.

no truly religious/ seeking person will demand blind obedience or blind faith from you.

they will say: learn, learn for yourself, take what you can, take what works, go, explore.

look at people like da vinci, hell, look at the alchemists & thoth.

lol.

silly silly people.
mysticism (the direct experience of the one-ness of all things)
and science (the proving thereof by way of rationality / repeatable experimentation).
go hand in hand.

or more precisely: hand (spirit) in glove (matter).

iwanci, you are a nice person, i like talking to you, but some things you are quite wrong about.

:hugging:


NP. Took me about 5 min, I type 128wpm average, and providing facts to prove my statements(and my beliefs) and experience the winning just makes it all the more humorous. :alien51: (another reason why when im stating facts, i do not portray them as facts unless I know they are. I am a numbers man, if i met you once in 3 months ,I wouldn't remember your name, but i'd know your age if we talked about it or any other number references..)

:cheers: man.

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by SamueltheLion » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:34 pm

thanks for typing that out nuggets, good stuff :)

nice links, enough for anyone who really wants to know to see.

fact is, everyone has "faith" and "belief" or -HYPOTHESIS- and then goes on to prove it, at which point it becomes knowledge.

no truly religious/ seeking person will demand blind obedience or blind faith from you.

they will say: learn, learn for yourself, take what you can, take what works, go, explore.

look at people like da vinci, hell, look at the alchemists & thoth.

lol.

silly silly people.
mysticism (the direct experience of the one-ness of all things)
and science (the proving thereof by way of rationality / repeatable experimentation).
go hand in hand.

or more precisely: hand (spirit) in glove (matter).

iwanci, you are a nice person, i like talking to you, but some things you are quite wrong about.

:hugging:

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by Mrmcnuggets » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:18 pm

iwanci wrote:90% of scientists what???

I will say this..... to that..... BULLSHIT!

Show me a list of ALL the scientists along with how many believe in a higher being..

I never state a stat for 2 reasons..

One - because there are lies, lies and statistics
Two - see point number one

Stats are reliant on many variables and can be skewed to many ends. I will accept them only when they can be verified.. and this my friends can not.

BTW... I am not suggesting that a more intelligent being does not exist.. I am stating that we were not 'created' in the context we read in scripture... Who know's... perhaps we were created in an alien lab and set free on this planet to eradicate some pest / microbe or to make the land fertile for some unknown reason in the future.. that is possible.. but who knows is my point.. until we know, anything is plausible, but show me the facts not the idealism.

Your own very scriptures tell you that ignorance is not an excuse, yet religious people hide behind this by the very nature of their 'blind' faith. Must be true because my priest told me or because some other guy wrote it, and when it all gets too confusing or hard to believe, turn don't question it just believe it blindly...

Give me a break .... use the old walnut in your heads people...


HAHAHA. Ok. Well. You just challenged someone to battle ship, when you coincidentally are playing in a mine field. :mrgreen:

Here is one link.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... faith.html
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Einstein is a pretty big person in science.
The day the mason master building corner stone was laid in Manhattan Ny, he was there, as well as a who's who of scientists, physicists, pretty much any one who has proven the big shit in life.
The day after, Einstein released his 7 laws of energy and how it cannot be created, or destroyed. Only transferred.

Here is a DTV thread. :alien51: .He says "Prove it"... :roll: :alien51:
scientists-do-prove-there-is-a-creator-god-t55827.html?hilit=Scientists%20believe%20in%20God

Oh wait.. heres another one. :idea: :hmmm: :alien51:
scientists-find-god-t29402.html?hilit=Scientists%20believe%20in%20God

Let me know if you are still hungry for more.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... ebate.html
91% of ALL americans, which would include that 90% of scientists,as there are more scientists in this country than you think.

2/3rds of all scientists believe in 'God' 2005 (7 years ago.)
http://www.livescience.com/379-scientis ... pline.html


lol. GG man. Searching is kinda cool sometimes ya know. :dunno:

Btw, you saying this,
NO!

Science by its very definition is different to ANY religion.


and then saying this,
BTW... I am not suggesting that a more intelligent being does not exist.. I am stating that we were not 'created' in the context we read in scripture... Who know's... perhaps we were created in an alien lab and set free on this planet to eradicate some pest / microbe or to make the land fertile for some unknown reason in the future.. that is possible.. but who knows is my point.. until we know, anything is plausible, but show me the facts not the idealism.

is refuting your self.

Science by its very definition. Science is only prove through its equation of math. Something the new testament does exactly that, forwards, backwards, names, sentences, paragraphs. Are all equations, that support each other, the meaning, and the next word. :flop:

:alien51:

What is the first process of a scientific experiment once set up?...... Observation. Observation is the same as believing in something, as what you do not see, you do not observe. :lol:

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by Iwanci » Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:40 am

90% of scientists what???

I will say this..... to that..... BULLSHIT!

Show me a list of ALL the scientists along with how many believe in a higher being..

I never state a stat for 2 reasons..

One - because there are lies, lies and statistics
Two - see point number one

Stats are reliant on many variables and can be skewed to many ends. I will accept them only when they can be verified.. and this my friends can not.

BTW... I am not suggesting that a more intelligent being does not exist.. I am stating that we were not 'created' in the context we read in scripture... Who know's... perhaps we were created in an alien lab and set free on this planet to eradicate some pest / microbe or to make the land fertile for some unknown reason in the future.. that is possible.. but who knows is my point.. until we know, anything is plausible, but show me the facts not the idealism.

Your own very scriptures tell you that ignorance is not an excuse, yet religious people hide behind this by the very nature of their 'blind' faith. Must be true because my priest told me or because some other guy wrote it, and when it all gets too confusing or hard to believe, turn don't question it just believe it blindly...

Give me a break .... use the old walnut in your heads people...

Re: ~Science and God~

Post by Fatdogmendoza » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:52 am

iwanci wrote:Ooops missed this one...

Mr Mule.. answer this strawman question...

If a scientist stood up and told you that he had made a discovery that was important to you (could be anything) would you ask for some 'factual' evidence/proof or would you just take his word and be satisfied, would you then go around spruking these finding based on what he told you?

If a person from a different religion to yours disputed that his religion was superior to yours or that his belief made your god pale into insignificance, would you absorb it? resist it? ask for some proof or facts perhaps before casting any judgments, or simply ignore it?

Yet, you and others like you believe that somehow, without any facts/proof are able to blindly believe that you have all the answers..following a mystical being, gut feel perhaps, feel good story maybe...

The troll Mr Mule is NOT me, I am but a realist, I don't try and give meaning to nonsensicle arguments, I look for facts and I interpret those, sometimes wrongly sometimes rightly. Religious people have zero facts, but are ever so willing to make them up to suite the cause... why rely on facts when your imagination makes you feel good? Give me ONE solid piece of evidence Mr Mule and I will be the greatest disciple you will ever know, give me nothing Mr Mule and I will simply be myself, inquistive and thirsty for knowledge. You don't satify your thirst by simply thinking or reading about water Mr Mule, you must have some to actually drink.

I suggest you Mr Mule, stop reading about life and start living it, one day you would be able to actually write something of value from yourself rather than regurgitate what has already been said.

Far better to use your brain and get it wrong than to use someone elses incorrect material, don't you think?

Don't get so defensive when you are asked for proof, as frustrating as it may be the reality of the matter is that you will never have any... you will always be asked, until you have something to show... believe in your religion and accept this as a part of it.


Well put sir/madam.. I have been involved in many debates regarding blind faith on this forum but I think I will take a backseat on this one for now because it has all been said before and is becoming extremely cyclical.. I do however fully agree with you :flop:

Top

Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook