+- Las Venturas Playground (https://forum.sa-mp.nl)
+-- Forum: Miscellaneous (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: General Talk (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-24.html)
+--- Thread: [Serious Discussion] Religion (/thread-26936.html)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Tuism - 06-16-2011
(06-16-2011, 04:20 PM)Slice link Wrote:
- Toast always land with the buttered side down
-__-
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - [SAE]Grim - 06-16-2011
Damn you toast!!!
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - 0Target0 - 06-16-2011
(06-16-2011, 03:19 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: self-called bad loser, u're like talking to ur self on the bases of reasons and ur own opinion. i know that u're a sceptic but obviously with no proofs. it isn't connected to God? fine then, guess the Factor Universe of the Science is full of dumbies and u're right (chemistry engineer must be right). get real, debates about ORCH OR are not going after whether it IS connected to God (because it clearly is based on creationism = God, it's a matter of how do u explain God now. creator is how i explain him, but yet again if he's God then not all questions can be revealed about him), but whether it is possible that the OTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORIES , where the ORCH OR theory takes scientific facts from, are still yet true.
I don't need to prove that God does not exist, you need to prove that he DOES exist. Because how do you prove something does not exist? How do you prove that outside the universe there not are three crocodiles? Right, you can't, therefore there are no crocodiles outside the universe untill i prove it to you.
Since you are trying to prove the existance of God with orch or, it seems essential to me that you show me where orch or is connected to God. If that is not what my discussion with you is about I suggest you read the previous 80 pages or so.
Just one question, what exactly is based on creationism? Because your sentences are gramatically such a mess that they are starting to lose their meaning.
What exactly is the Factor Universe of Science?
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-16-2011
why would i need to prove he exists? do you have any accurate proof and evidence that Atheism is accurate and correct and therefore doesnt have to proof anything? not really, that's why i dont NEED to proof anything. if u know what a "NEED" is , self caught.
"Because how do you prove something does not exist? How do you prove that outside the universe there not are three crocodiles? Right, you can't, therefore there are no crocodiles outside the universe untill i prove it to you."
oh God, these childish arguments again. how many PEOPLE believe and support the "myth" about crocodiles outside the university? how much historical and archeological founds are behind this myth?
)) the influence, the historical background, scientific historical facts in the "holy book" about crocodiles outside the universitiy, the support etc. so yes, it's pretty much the same... not, nice misinterpretation yet again. "Universe is a big, bad brain (containing several black holes, identical to those in the previous poster's brain)" i hope that wasnt misinterpretation Slice, brain?
and toasts myths are plausable ahssuahRe: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Maka - 06-16-2011
Atheism isn't a religion...
Styla, you're the one that believes in something that has never been proven. That's why he is the one to ask for proof and not the other way around. He doesn't believe in it, hence he shouldn't give proof that it doesn't exist, unless it is known that the subject does exist. In this case however, it isn't, as it has never been proven.
I'm not trying to get back in on the discussion, but that's just how the situation goes. If it doesn't get answered, then this discussion will stay in the same loop for still many pages to go.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-16-2011
(06-16-2011, 07:30 PM)Maka link Wrote: Atheism isn't a religion...
Styla, you're the one that believes in something that has never been proven. That's why he is the one to ask for proof and not the other way around. He doesn't believe in it, hence he shouldn't give proof that it doesn't exist, unless it is known that the subject does exist. In this case however, it isn't, as it has never been proven.
I'm not trying to get back in on the discussion, but that's just how the situation goes. If it doesn't get answered, then this discussion will stay in the same loop for still many pages to go.
didn't say atheism is religion, if you could warp your minds around God you would be God.
"That's why he is the one to ask for proof and not the other way around"
doesnt make sense because otherwise the prove of God not existing would have been proven, but it wasn't so i can yet ask him for valid arguments. why am i saying this? because he didn't really get scientific and saying it's a fairytale without any valid facts and just state misinterpretation is no better, actually it is worse and it's childish and not really intelligent. i've got my own reasons to believe and youve got ur own reasons not to, everyone's living their own life and the worst thing about the debate is to convince someone and be sceptic that denies only at the same time
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - durrrrr - 06-16-2011
It looks like you totally didn't read/listen to what Maka had said.
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - STyL4 - 06-16-2011
well, if he denies it then there has to be valid arguments, so it goes otherwise too
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Tuism - 06-16-2011
(06-16-2011, 08:21 PM)STyL4 link Wrote: didn't say atheism is religion, if you could warp your minds around God you would be God.
"That's why he is the one to ask for proof and not the other way around"
doesnt make sense because otherwise the prove of God not existing would have been proven, but it wasn't so i can yet ask him for valid arguments. why am i saying this? because he didn't really get scientific and saying it's a fairytale without any valid facts and just state misinterpretation is no better, actually it is worse and it's childish and not really intelligent. i've got my own reasons to believe and youve got ur own reasons not to, everyone's living their own life and the worst thing about the debate is to convince someone and be sceptic that denies only at the same time
sorry to interrupt but...
this (^) post either have the lack of correct punctuation or correct grammar... wasn't able to understand what you said there.
EDIT: wow new symbol "(^)(^)(^)(^)(^)(^)"
Re: [Serious Discussion] Religion - Daniel - 06-16-2011
up up up up
HOW YOU GET THAT SYMBOL