If You Doubt That You're No More Than An Intelligent Chimp

You may not believe in God, but he believes in you. i love this one
Phuck god and the jackass they said he rode in on. If he's had any thing to do with what I've seen during my lifetime we ought to impeach his foolish ass. One thing made him a loser in my book. Telling George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Bush a born again Christian who was pissed off at Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his daddy in April, 1993 just so conveniently prayed about Iraq and got the go-a-head from his man upstairs.

I have no respect for a god who approves an unnecessary war in which 4400 young Americans were killed, over 34,000 seriously wounded, conservatively 150,000 innocent Iraqis killed while two million others fled their homes to Syria and Jordon and just so a sitting American president could get some Texas vengeance because somkeone unsuccessfully attempted to kill his daddy. That whole scenario is foolish.

If anybody doesn't believe the Republicans had been trying to find an excuse to attack Iraq for years look at this letter they wrote to then president Bill Clinton:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
An idiot of the highest degree crying, quite entertaining. God loves you even if you don't love God or yourself. You can cry all you want, you are still wrong.
 
You may not believe in God, but he believes in you. i love this one
Phuck god and the jackass they said he rode in on. If he's had any thing to do with what I've seen during my lifetime we ought to impeach his foolish ass. One thing made him a loser in my book. Telling George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Bush a born again Christian who was pissed off at Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his daddy in April, 1993 just so conveniently prayed about Iraq and got the go-a-head from his man upstairs.

I have no respect for a god who approves an unnecessary war in which 4400 young Americans were killed, over 34,000 seriously wounded, conservatively 150,000 innocent Iraqis killed while two million others fled their homes to Syria and Jordon and just so a sitting American president could get some Texas vengeance because somkeone unsuccessfully attempted to kill his daddy. That whole scenario is foolish.

If anybody doesn't believe the Republicans had been trying to find an excuse to attack Iraq for years look at this letter they wrote to then president Bill Clinton:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Wow, you are one deranged liberal. You actually hate God because of Booooooooooooooooosh.
 
You may not believe in God, but he believes in you. i love this one
Phuck god and the jackass they said he rode in on. If he's had any thing to do with what I've seen during my lifetime we ought to impeach his foolish ass. One thing made him a loser in my book. Telling George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Bush a born again Christian who was pissed off at Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his daddy in April, 1993 just so conveniently prayed about Iraq and got the go-a-head from his man upstairs.

I have no respect for a god who approves an unnecessary war in which 4400 young Americans were killed, over 34,000 seriously wounded, conservatively 150,000 innocent Iraqis killed while two million others fled their homes to Syria and Jordon and just so a sitting American president could get some Texas vengeance because somkeone unsuccessfully attempted to kill his daddy. That whole scenario is foolish.

If anybody doesn't believe the Republicans had been trying to find an excuse to attack Iraq for years look at this letter they wrote to then president Bill Clinton:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Wow, you are one deranged liberal. You actually hate God because of Booooooooooooooooosh.

Wow.

That is a profound statement describing his mental illness.

:clap2:
 
You may not believe in God, but he believes in you. i love this one
Phuck god and the jackass they said he rode in on. If he's had any thing to do with what I've seen during my lifetime we ought to impeach his foolish ass. One thing made him a loser in my book. Telling George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Bush a born again Christian who was pissed off at Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his daddy in April, 1993 just so conveniently prayed about Iraq and got the go-a-head from his man upstairs.

I have no respect for a god who approves an unnecessary war in which 4400 young Americans were killed, over 34,000 seriously wounded, conservatively 150,000 innocent Iraqis killed while two million others fled their homes to Syria and Jordon and just so a sitting American president could get some Texas vengeance because somkeone unsuccessfully attempted to kill his daddy. That whole scenario is foolish.

If anybody doesn't believe the Republicans had been trying to find an excuse to attack Iraq for years look at this letter they wrote to then president Bill Clinton:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Wow, you are one deranged liberal. You actually hate God because of Booooooooooooooooosh.

Explain something to me. How can I hate something which I absolutely do not believe in or think exists. Me and Dr. Einstein are on the same page. I might add Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.

"and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" ~Thomas Jefferson~ excerpt from a letter to then president John Adams 1823

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." ~Dr. Albert Einstein~


"I have a religion--but you will call it blasphemy. It is that there is a God for the rich man but none for the poor and starving" Mark Twain

Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes, and wishes he was certain.
~Mark Twain~ 1879

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.~Mark Twain~
 
Me and Dr. Einstein are on the same page. I might add Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.

You and Twain, maybe, but your views are in no way similar to those of Jefferson, who in turn did not hold views remotely like Einstein's, whose views were actually a lot closer to mine than yours.
 
Phuck god and the jackass they said he rode in on. If he's had any thing to do with what I've seen during my lifetime we ought to impeach his foolish ass. One thing made him a loser in my book. Telling George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Bush a born again Christian who was pissed off at Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate his daddy in April, 1993 just so conveniently prayed about Iraq and got the go-a-head from his man upstairs.

I have no respect for a god who approves an unnecessary war in which 4400 young Americans were killed, over 34,000 seriously wounded, conservatively 150,000 innocent Iraqis killed while two million others fled their homes to Syria and Jordon and just so a sitting American president could get some Texas vengeance because somkeone unsuccessfully attempted to kill his daddy. That whole scenario is foolish.

If anybody doesn't believe the Republicans had been trying to find an excuse to attack Iraq for years look at this letter they wrote to then president Bill Clinton:

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Wow, you are one deranged liberal. You actually hate God because of Booooooooooooooooosh.

Explain something to me. How can I hate something which I absolutely do not believe in or think exists. Me and Dr. Einstein are on the same page. I might add Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.

"and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" ~Thomas Jefferson~ excerpt from a letter to then president John Adams 1823

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." ~Dr. Albert Einstein~


"I have a religion--but you will call it blasphemy. It is that there is a God for the rich man but none for the poor and starving" Mark Twain

Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes, and wishes he was certain.
~Mark Twain~ 1879

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.~Mark Twain~

Explain to me how we went from a world made of only inorganic material one moment and the next moment a world with organic life? And why this can't be replicated in a lab?

On the backs of crystals like Richard Dawkins says? :lol:
 
Explain to me how we went from a world made of only inorganic material one moment and the next moment a world with organic life?

We didn't. Organic material predates organic life by quite a stretch.

And why this can't be replicated in a lab?

Because we don't fully understand yet what "this" is. Attempting to replicate it in a lab is part of finding out.

The thing about science is that the answers don't come pre-packaged. They have to be found, and that's not an instantaneous process. Even after they are found, all answers are provisional and there is always uncertainty.

But it's like I told a friend of mine the other day. Either we can accept uncertain answers, or we can make stuff up and be completely ignorant. There's no third option.
 
Wow, you are one deranged liberal. You actually hate God because of Booooooooooooooooosh.

Explain something to me. How can I hate something which I absolutely do not believe in or think exists. Me and Dr. Einstein are on the same page. I might add Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.

"and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" ~Thomas Jefferson~ excerpt from a letter to then president John Adams 1823

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." ~Dr. Albert Einstein~


"I have a religion--but you will call it blasphemy. It is that there is a God for the rich man but none for the poor and starving" Mark Twain

Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes, and wishes he was certain.
~Mark Twain~ 1879

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.~Mark Twain~

Explain to me how we went from a world made of only inorganic material one moment and the next moment a world with organic life? And why this can't be replicated in a lab?

On the backs of crystals like Richard Dawkins says? :lol:

Umm what says that we went from lifeless to life in one moment?
Ohh wait the bible :D

We know the very basics of how our brain works too but can we make a human brain?
 
Explain something to me. How can I hate something which I absolutely do not believe in or think exists. Me and Dr. Einstein are on the same page. I might add Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.

"and the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" ~Thomas Jefferson~ excerpt from a letter to then president John Adams 1823

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human fraility. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in nature." ~Dr. Albert Einstein~


"I have a religion--but you will call it blasphemy. It is that there is a God for the rich man but none for the poor and starving" Mark Twain

Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes, and wishes he was certain.
~Mark Twain~ 1879

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.~Mark Twain~

Explain to me how we went from a world made of only inorganic material one moment and the next moment a world with organic life? And why this can't be replicated in a lab?

On the backs of crystals like Richard Dawkins says? :lol:

Umm what says that we went from lifeless to life in one moment?
Ohh wait the bible :D

We know the very basics of how our brain works too but can we make a human brain?

Not referring to the bible at all. Referring to the atheists that believe life sprung out of rocks completely randomly.
 
Explain to me how we went from a world made of only inorganic material one moment and the next moment a world with organic life?

We didn't. Organic material predates organic life by quite a stretch.

And why this can't be replicated in a lab?

Because we don't fully understand yet what "this" is. Attempting to replicate it in a lab is part of finding out.

The thing about science is that the answers don't come pre-packaged. They have to be found, and that's not an instantaneous process. Even after they are found, all answers are provisional and there is always uncertainty.

But it's like I told a friend of mine the other day. Either we can accept uncertain answers, or we can make stuff up and be completely ignorant. There's no third option.

Exactly, you don't understand. So why berate those who believe it could of been done by a higher power?
 
Oh come now.

If ORGANIC matter means matter that comes from something that was once living*, then where did the original organic material come from?

_______________
*Organic matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Alright, Mister, pull the logic truck over.

Traffic-Cop-in-Pajamas--17886.jpg


We'll have none of that mumbo jumbo around here. Got it, punk?

***Yes she is so a traffic cop--Google image search said so.

:D
 
Explain to me how we went from a world made of only inorganic material one moment and the next moment a world with organic life? And why this can't be replicated in a lab?

On the backs of crystals like Richard Dawkins says? :lol:

Umm what says that we went from lifeless to life in one moment?
Ohh wait the bible :D

We know the very basics of how our brain works too but can we make a human brain?

Not referring to the bible at all. Referring to the atheists that believe life sprung out of rocks completely randomly.

Not in an instant though.
Bible thumpers are the ones saying the earth is 10K years old.

I personally believe that we are the result of some alien HS kids high school science project. He failed the class btw.
 
Last edited:
Me and Dr. Einstein are on the same page. I might add Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.

You and Twain, maybe, but your views are in no way similar to those of Jefferson, who in turn did not hold views remotely like Einstein's, whose views were actually a lot closer to mine than yours.

Screw You! Don't be telling me about my views. Also you might consider the fact that your opinion of Jefferson, Twain or Einstein is your interpretation and nothing more than that.

Actually Mark Twain mocked and made fun of the presbyterian's of which he was one...or stated that he was. Anybody who read much of his stuff knows if he believed in anything it wasn't god.

Einstein was adamant about his belief that there is no afterlife and that mankind will not be punished for his mistakes. He knew that ancient god worship was a gimmick made up by primitive mankind in order to control through fear and get into people's crops and wealth.

As we speak if the south sea islands are included there are more than 4000 ancient gods being worshipped. Take the Christian faith and it's denominations, conventions, sects, cults, sub cults etc. and add another 44,000 renditions. If it didn't control so many people's lives and gleen and gather so much of people's money....even those who can least afford it, the whole damn thing would be hillarious. I think the first time a fancy church with mahagony pews, steeples, stained glass and expensive musical instruments accepts money from a widow or the very poor they should be pilloried in the public square and the tax free status is a no brainer.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top