FUCK.RELIGION.
- Thread starter rory420420
- Start date
Sativied
Well-Known Member
No, but can you prove that with information from TMNT cartoons/movies/games?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, certainly not religion nor to steer you away from your own. I have no desire to do so.
The passion for your religion is clouding your mind, I never said there is a god, I'm not the religious one in this discussion.
How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they use them as controls in double blind trials.
I'm the most modest man in the entire universe in all dimensions so good luck with that man.
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Really? What part of my poster was not accurate?
rory420420
Well-Known Member
i can prove it..t.m.n.t are fake,just like god..if youre not trying to convince me,why all the rhetoric?..the title clearly says my beliefs.
not so modest imo..been trying to prove yourself and ideads/beliefs to me for pages now..thats not modest,and dont try to hide behind "i was merely trying to explain.." type shit..
science is not religion its physical facts you can check time and time again,with the same dependable results..science is what religion WANTS to be..religion is the worlds longest running real life info-mercial..it keeps repeating itself so much to you at the right time in your life,you succumb to the pressure,put your faith in the product,and give money for it,only to recieve a cheap imitation version of what you expected,with no refund available..and to make matters worse theres allways a special intriductory offer,and if you buy now,you get extra for a friend for the same price..
you dont get a refund,if you over pray.
Last edited:
rory420420
Well-Known Member
No, but can you prove that with information from TMNT cartoons/movies/games?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, certainly not religion nor to steer you away from your own. I have no desire to do so.
The passion for your religion is clouding your mind, I never said there is a god, I'm not the religious one in this discussion.
How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they use them as controls in double blind trials.
I'm the most modest man in the entire universe in all dimensions so good luck with that man.
rory420420
Well-Known Member
how many scientist does it take to change a lightbulb?
dont know?
pray you find an answer in the bible befor the lights go out and you cant read..god will "miracle" you though right? let the blind man in the dark see,and all that mumbly joe bulkshit.
fuck.religion.
dont know?
pray you find an answer in the bible befor the lights go out and you cant read..god will "miracle" you though right? let the blind man in the dark see,and all that mumbly joe bulkshit.
fuck.religion.
rory420420
Well-Known Member
light bulb..made by science..how many lightbulbs god make?
just a burning bush as far as i can see.
just a burning bush as far as i can see.
rory420420
Well-Known Member
no,im italian.sorry to dissapoint you.i know you want big black cock,your "cuckhold" comments tell me that(i had to look the term up..you got a weird fetish,but i cant judge,i like watchin my wife with people too..but they are hot women..to each their own.)
look dude,all joking aside,im not gay,quit with the come ons in your p.m.'s
Sativied
Well-Known Member
How can something that doesn't exist according to science create something as scientific as a lightbulb? If you would be right about there being a god that could create, then I think the sun and the stars are better examples than a burning bush.
Lightbulbs are made possible by another of the four fundamental forces of nature, the electromagnetic force. It exists. Using it doesn't prove anything apart from that it exists. A religious person could argue that is just another of God's super powers.
Imagine being an bystander and some scientist says "my science resulted in a light bulb" and and a religious person saying "my religion result in the sun, the stars and everything in the universe, including the atoms that make up the light bulb". Objectively the latter wins.
How is a lightbulb any more convincing than a wooden wheel? Because it's more complex? So the more scientifically complex the more proof it is? That's how TV priests or whatever they call themselves do too. They overload someone with so much religion that some start to consider it as the truth. Science took that to a whole 'nother level.
rory420420
Well-Known Member
"I'm not trying to convince you of anything, certainly not religion nor to steer you away from your own. I have no desire to do so."
damn..all the same.lies.lol
rory420420
Well-Known Member
look dude,no offense,i been nice,and ive told you..
THIS IS NOT A DEBATE.
go peddle your goods elsewhere.theyvare not wanted here but for one thing..a good laugh to.break the tension in the world that has been caused by a little man in your head.
money is the root of all evil..thats why religious nuts want to give it to their spiritual "mob boss/capo".. more money they have,more of their views can be unwantedly cemented into society so THEIR lives are how they want them,at the expense of others..
FUCK.RELIGION.
THIS IS NOT A DEBATE.
go peddle your goods elsewhere.theyvare not wanted here but for one thing..a good laugh to.break the tension in the world that has been caused by a little man in your head.
money is the root of all evil..thats why religious nuts want to give it to their spiritual "mob boss/capo".. more money they have,more of their views can be unwantedly cemented into society so THEIR lives are how they want them,at the expense of others..
FUCK.RELIGION.
rory420420
Well-Known Member
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
Realistically, both in the above example are making a positive claim, thus are subject to the burden of proof. Person A with the light bulb, if knowledgeable, could demonstrate the process of creating the bulb. This process, if done correctly, can be repeated by others and will work the same way each and every time. Person B claiming that a deity created those things would likewise be obligated to demonstrate that his claims are what he states. Person A would be meeting the Burden of Proof for his positive claim, while Person B could not. That seems to be a substantial difference. One method seems a more credible than the other in the search for knowledge regarding objective reality...
The scientific method yields the most accurate information regarding objective reality that we have at any given time. It is a method whose answers are limited to the technology of the day, so its accumulated body of knowledge is always open to revision and addition as new tech becomes available. It carefully observes nature and uses logic to form hypotheses as non-bias explanations of observed phenomena. It then doubts its conclusions and does its best to falsify them. If its conclusions withstand all attempts to discredit them, they become theory that is open to addition and revision as time passes and technology advances. Its claims are verifiable and its experimental proof is repeatable by others. The scientific method has spawned every major value that we use daily, and is at the vehicle of all major human progress. It seems that the dogma relayed by TV evangelists pales in comparison…
Last edited:
rory420420
Well-Known Member
the fact that time is a human concept...it does not really exist.
b.c.,a.d...never happened..unless your a religious mathmetician(dire implications of a newer,bigger,mecha-striesand religion!)
watch out! physics youre done for...religion has you now!
b.c.,a.d...never happened..unless your a religious mathmetician(dire implications of a newer,bigger,mecha-striesand religion!)
watch out! physics youre done for...religion has you now!
bradburry
Well-Known Member
its complecated.
Look, I'm the Messiah and you"re just going to have to live with that. All of these false messiahs are giving me a bad name. I encourage rational debate about my existence and big breasts. The bigger, the better I like it.
I'm thinking about a breast-centric off-shoot from the big three mono-theocratic hallucinations. How about Breastianity or Titlam or Mammism. Who's with me?
I'm thinking about a breast-centric off-shoot from the big three mono-theocratic hallucinations. How about Breastianity or Titlam or Mammism. Who's with me?
bradburry
Well-Known Member
where all god buddy.....every fucking one of us
rory420420
Well-Known Member
nah..youre a little BITCH.
rory420420
Well-Known Member
Both examples make a positive CLAIM...only ones making a positive impact,the other is slowly eating the world and humanity alive...
Nevaeh420
Well-Known Member
Did you read this whole thread yet?
http://www.theforumsite.com/forum/topic/There-is-a-Man-claiming-to-be-Christ-with-evidence-/482442/0
Please go to page 12 and page 14, in order to read the Bible stories that I believe I have fulfilled, and to read some of My prophecies.
Or you can take some time and just read through the entire thread.
In that link, you can watch My videos of Myself too.
I can almost guarantee that you will be a smarter person for reading through that thread.
That link is basically My FREE autobiography.
I would like to base My future book off of that link.
Towards the end of that thread, I link you to some of My better work, so please click on all of the links I provide.
Also, this is for anyone: can anyone debunk anything that I have said?
Thank you for taking the time to learn the facts, evidence, etc., about Me- the Christ.
~PEACE~