People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Taz]

The Protocols are forgeries but you're welcome to believe what you want.

Whether the Protocols are a forgery or not isn't the issue. It's words ring with truth, and explains the Zionist / Israeli goals and agenda perfectly. .....

The Koran is a forgery of another book of fiction. Mo couldn't even come up with his own ideas. So he wiped his ass with rocks.

 

[Boss]

You guys tend to always run to "evolution" in order to explain origin and it simply doesn't explain origin and never will. What does it take to get that salient point through your neanderthal heads? In order to "evolve" something first had to exist. Can you offer a valid and testable scientific hypothesis for how life originated? If not, just admit you can't! Stop trying to use "evolution" to explain something it doesn't and can't explain.

Look.... I understand that you believe all life has ultimately "evolved" into existence from some mysterious and unexplained single cell. But to me, that's pretty fucking incredible! That trillions of various life forms in all their majestic wonder, with all their symbiotic relationships and interdependence, sprang forth from an ubiquitous single cell of life. Think about what you are claiming and explain how it isn't, for all practical purposes, an unprecedented miracle of miracles?

I don't comprehend how any rational mind could conclude such a thing was a fluke of random chance due to chemistry and physics in an otherwise chaotic universe. To me, that makes even less sense than any Creator Deity imaginable.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is impossible. I have no idea how we can launch a spacecraft and hit a planet but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Did I state that something was "impossible?" If so, please use the quote feature and point that out to me. Because I am usually pretty careful about proclaiming things "impossible."

But let's be clear, until you can offer valid evidence through science to support a notion that life created itself, then all you have is FAITH. You believe something is possible that you can't prove and that's fine... it's no different than faith in God.

.

Did I state that something was "impossible?" .. / .. You believe something is possible that you can't prove and that's fine.

Did I state that something was "impossible?"


in your own paragraph ...

Well no, you fucking idiot... stating factually that something hasn't been proven possible is NOT saying something is impossible! You must enjoy me bitch slapping you or something?

.

Well no, you fucking idiot... stating factually that something hasn't been proven possible is NOT saying something is impossible! You must enjoy me bitch slapping you or something?

You believe something is possible that you can't prove

NOT saying something is impossible ../.. that you can't prove

^ makes no sense ...

you clearly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph, you simply haven't the capacity to separate fact from fiction.

Nonsense. There are many things I cannot prove but I believe they are possible. Likewise, there are things I don't believe are possible but can admit that I could be wrong and they could be possible. What I personally believe is possible and what IS possible are two completely different things. No contradiction.

 

[alang1216]

The Protocols are forgeries but you're welcome to believe what you want.

Whether the Protocols are a forgery or not isn't the issue. It's words ring with truth, and explains the Zionist / Israeli goals and agenda perfectly. .....

My bad, I thought Islam respected the 10 Commandments, even the 9th.

 

[alang1216]

[...] humans have this intrinsic hubris to believe they DO know everything.
[...] Now, try to comprehend that "GOD" transcends time.

 

[task0778]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God

OR

People are going to have to face the reality that there IS a God and there IS an afterlife.

Hopefully there is an afterlife and something positive to look forward to.

I've always had mixed feelings about the term "afterlife." I really think there should be another word to define it because it sounds too much like a contradiction of what we understand of physics. When "life" ends, it's over... it ceases to exist. Something else might exist but it's not that physical life that ended. Perhaps "spiritual after-existence" is a better terminology? Your eternal spirit moves on to some other plane or dimension of existence, no longer physical "life" as we know it.... or perhaps, life in some other state?

I think one of the fundamental problems we have as humans is the inability to fully comprehend spiritual nature. We have to imagine "afterlife" as if it's an extension of our own physical experience. It's because that is all we can relate to. Religious people may often imagine they will see long lost loved ones after they die, but why would your spirit need the physical attribute of eyesight? What if you have an acute awareness that you don't have as a mortal being and your loved ones are merely "sensed" for lack of a better word?

Possibly you are getting a little too wrapped up in semantics. When a human being dies, his/her physical presence is over and done with and the person is dead. And I don't think there's much confusion about that. When most people talk about the the afterlife they are by definition referring to whatever exists after that physical death, which has to be non-physical, aka spiritual or perhaps some form of energy if one prefers.

Does it matter if most people relate to the afterlife as a physical extension of our physical experience? Our physical, material existence may be over but who's to say how our spiritual presence may represent itself to others in whatever spirit worlds exist? Our spiritual essence that continues to exist after our physical death may very well perceive the spiritual existence of others in the spirit world in some manifestation of what we used to look like when we were physically alive. Eyes and ears and noses and such may not be necessary, possibly there are other modes of recognizing and communicating with each other. Telepathy maybe.

 

[Sunni Man]

My bad, I thought Islam respected the 10 Commandments, even the 9th.

I am most likely the only poster here who has ever read the Protocols. (purchased a copy from Amazon several years ago) Just to find out what all the controversy was all about.

Although somewhat lacking in literary style. The main theme of the book seemed to correspond to what I see the Zionists doing, not just in the Middle East, but throughout the world today. ....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.
View attachment 152757


nature provides such a proof from a land creature to an avian, observable and verified - without an intermediary transition.

That's an insect that 'supposedly' evolved. It is not 'proof' in the manner you are referring. Dragonflies, mosquitoes, and other insects have the same adaptation. Try again. You're being disingenuous with your pathetic attempts at best.

Show the intermediary forms that lead to this adaptation with visual records and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"and direct observation of the millions of years it took to reach this stage."

Ha, and there it is. Same shit every time with you guys. What an absurd standard. Should scientists also be kind enough to come over to your house and watch a lump of an isotope for 2.5 million years to make you believe the half-life of the isotope is 2.5 million years? Maybe we should all come over, and spend a few hundred million years replicating the formation of Earth. Would you then believe it has an iron core? Would you then believe planets can coalesce out of gaseous clouds?

So your answer is "NO" and that you have no proof that we're anything more than a computer program that someone named God turned on either a nanosecond ago, six thousand years ago,..... or approximately fifteen billion years ago.

*****CHUCKLE*****

My answer is "no"... to what, exactly? That I have no proof of the universe being deterministic? I'm trying to make sense of the thoughts you are foisting on me as my own, before I respond to this rude gesture.

"anything more than a computer program"

I will assume you refer to the idea that the universe is a deterministic physical system. Science doesn't "prove" this, or attempt to prove this. It is assumed, because it works. Every single time. This basic principle is how scientists understand anything in the physical world.

Now, as it turns out, there is no reason at all to believe the universe is anything but deterministic, and the empirical evidence bears this out. Certainly it is reasonable to expect any physical process we study to be deterministic. You may say, "But God can perform miracles!". Okay, maybe gods can do this. Maybe gods can violate determinism. It would be rather hard to test such an idea; I could never rule it out. Maybe God did miracles! okay... and? You obviously have distaste for a "clockwork god". Wield your miracle hypotheses as you wish, but realize when they are wrong.

Point being, theists need to realize that your insistence on the influence of gods on our reality is just not compatible with science. There is no overlap, and thus no quarrel. Only dogma can quarrel with science, not theism itself. Not the concept of miracles, either. Don't present your dogma as reason for theism. You put the cart before the horse when you do.

View attachment 152768

What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along...

mracle definition - Bing

MIRACLE:
- a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences:

...How about you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

"What action/event caused the Big Bang and set the universe in motion?

I'm going with a miracle until something better comes along..."

Of course you are. This is not new ground you are treading. This is the same thing people have done throughout history, with every gap in our understanding. And if we figure it out, you'll just find a different gap to fill with miracles. And that's fine...it has no affect on science or anything we do. It's just your personal belief.

 

[boedicca]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

The odds of anything developing without a God don't make much sense either, bub.

And nobody has to accept the beliefs of anyone else.

 

[alang1216]

My bad, I thought Islam respected the 10 Commandments, even the 9th.

I am most likely the only poster here who has ever read the Protocols. (purchased a copy from Amazon several years ago) Just to find out what all the controversy was all about.

Although somewhat lacking in literary style. The main theme of the book seemed to correspond to what I see the Zionists doing, not just in the Middle East, but throughout the world today. ....

Does it bother you that the book was made up by people who hated Jews? Trump claimed that Muslims in NJ celebrated when the planes hit the World Trade Center. Does it matter if that is true or not?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you, or some scientist, directly observed the species change from one type of animal to another?

I doubt that.

The best you can say is that supposedly the species changed from one thing into another.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152721

*****SMILE*****

.

You have no direct and uncontroversial proof that the bones of one are the ancestors of another unless you, or a scientist, were there to directly observe the phenomenon take place.

View attachment 152757


nature provides such a proof from a land creature to an avian, observable and verified - without an intermediary transition.

That is not correct use of the word, "proof". It also is not even evidence. It is easily explained without the need to introduce your magical thinking, nor is it compelling. Stop using the words "evidence" and "proof" in your diatribes. For accuracy, substitute " kinda sorta feels like" and "because I say so".

.

That is not correct use of the word, "proof". It also is not even evidence. It is easily explained without the need to introduce your magical thinking, nor is it compelling. Stop using the words "evidence" and "proof" in your diatribes. For accuracy, substitute " kinda sorta feels like" and "because I say so".

View attachment 152759

incontestable proof of a transition from one being into another ... without an intermediary stage. - suck on it fort fun ...


without the need to introduce your magical thinking -


... and where is the being during the process.

"incontestable proof of a transition from one being into another ... without an intermediary stage. - suck on it fort fun ..."

Hello .... McFly..... those are not different beings... seriously man, take a high school level science course! And of course there is an intermediate stage... several, actually. You can literally watch the nymph form the adults structures slowly. Where DO you get this laughable nonsense?

.

those are not different beings

they are different beings, one is bound to land the other has wings the same would be true of a human that grew wings they would be two different beings your assumption of DNA constraint is without substance the DNA is not the controlling factor.

an evolutionary transition without an intermediary stage is verifiable and observed as per the original discourse of disbelief by that poster.

And of course there is an intermediate stage...

again from the original poster, intermediate stages are required for proof is inaccurate when the being transforms from one to another the process eventually becomes metaphysical single stage irregardless the creature. the intermediate stages are the aberrations or test runs for the metaphysical process that is not required though occasionally observed.

"they are different beings, one is bound to land the other has wings"

False. They are the exact same being: a cicada. "Growing wings" is a silly, arbitrary standard. There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it, and we can explain every detail in purely materialistic terms. You are trying to introduce magical nonsense where none is required to explain anything.

 

[Sunni Man]

Does it bother you that the book was made up by people who hated Jews?

A court claimed it was a forgery. I'm not sure if the work was a forgery or not. Either way, I found the book to ring true based on current events. .....

 

[Boss]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God

OR

People are going to have to face the reality that there IS a God and there IS an afterlife.

Hopefully there is an afterlife and something positive to look forward to.

I've always had mixed feelings about the term "afterlife." I really think there should be another word to define it because it sounds too much like a contradiction of what we understand of physics. When "life" ends, it's over... it ceases to exist. Something else might exist but it's not that physical life that ended. Perhaps "spiritual after-existence" is a better terminology? Your eternal spirit moves on to some other plane or dimension of existence, no longer physical "life" as we know it.... or perhaps, life in some other state?

I think one of the fundamental problems we have as humans is the inability to fully comprehend spiritual nature. We have to imagine "afterlife" as if it's an extension of our own physical experience. It's because that is all we can relate to. Religious people may often imagine they will see long lost loved ones after they die, but why would your spirit need the physical attribute of eyesight? What if you have an acute awareness that you don't have as a mortal being and your loved ones are merely "sensed" for lack of a better word?

Possibly you are getting a little too wrapped up in semantics. When a human being dies, his/her physical presence is over and done with and the person is dead. And I don't think there's much confusion about that. When most people talk about the the afterlife they are by definition referring to whatever exists after that physical death, which has to be non-physical, aka spiritual or perhaps some form of energy if one prefers.

Does it matter if most people relate to the afterlife as a physical extension of our physical experience? Our physical, material existence may be over but who's to say how our spiritual presence may represent itself to others in whatever spirit worlds exist? Our spiritual essence that continues to exist after our physical death may very well perceive the spiritual existence of others in the spirit world in some manifestation of what we used to look like when we were physically alive. Eyes and ears and noses and such may not be necessary, possibly there are other modes of recognizing and communicating with each other. Telepathy maybe.

That's what I mean, the term "afterlife" almost feels primitive or archaic. But I think this is often the case with Spiritual Nature we can't fully comprehend. We're like monkeys trying to comprehend nuclear physics, it's just something beyond our mortal ability. We come up with "earthly" words which we can relate to, like "afterlife" because that's familiar to us.

Another good example is "intelligent design." I've often said the attribute of "intelligent" is perhaps the closest 'grunting noise' we can make to define something we cannot comprehend as humans. Is "omniscience" the same as "intelligence?" Or is that just what we mortals can relate to?

 

[Sunni Man]

Trump claimed that Muslims in NJ celebrated when the planes hit the World Trade Center. Does it matter if that is true or not?

I have no idea what Trump saw or didn't see. ....

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, et al,

Yes, well I tend to get confused about what the "truth" is → how does it explain the "Zionist / Israeli goals and agenda."

I don't actually understand what Dr Levy's Paper is trying to present.

The Protocols are forgeries but you're welcome to believe what you want.

Whether the Protocols are a forgery or not isn't the issue. It's words ring with truth, and explains the Zionist / Israeli goals and agenda perfectly. .....

(COMMENT)

I don't believe this has any relevance in today's reality.

Please do not think this a joke: it only seems a joke, and behind it there lurks a gigantic truth, and it is this, that all latter-day ideas and movements have originally sprung from a Jewish source, for the simple reason, that the Semitic idea has finally conquered and entirely subdued this only apparently irreligious universe of ours.

------------------------ AND ------------------------​

We (Jews) have erred, my friend; we have most grievously erred. And if there was truth in our error 3,000, 2,000, nay, 100 years ago, there is now nothing but falseness and madness... a madness that will produce an even greater misery and an even wider anarchy.

------------------------ AND ------------------------​

We who have promised to lead you to a new Heaven, we have finally succeeded in leading you into a new Hell. . .

​

This is a great example, --- a century old Jewish publication, --- of gibberish. The people of that time and era might have actually understood what the intent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were. But it is just history now - of little value; turning yellow on the book shelf.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sunni Man]

​

This is a great example, --- a century old Jewish publication, --- of gibberish. The people of that time and era might have actually understood what the intent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were. But it is just history now - of little value; turning yellow on the book shelf.

​

Have you ever read the book? .... ​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, alang1216, et al,

There have been, there are, and there will be a measure of incitement of using ideas like that published here, designed to motivate extremism and
intolerance poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights, indirectly generate threats to the regional peace; plus the social and economic development of the Jewish State of Israel.

Does it bother you that the book was made up by people who hated Jews?

A court claimed it was a forgery. I'm not sure if the work was a forgery or not. Either way, I found the book to ring true based on current events. .....

(COMMENT)

There was a time that I was interested in the Quatrains of Nostradamus; in my mind I could make the obscure fortunetelling and tarot readings match the events of today. But, for a document that is not authentic, The Protocols have seen many by people use this to demonize the Jews for campaign and plan for global domination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sunni Man]

RE: People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD
※→ Sunni Man, alang1216, et al,

There have been, there are, and there will be a measure of incitement of using ideas like that published here, designed to motivate extremism and
intolerance poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights, indirectly generate threats to the regional peace; plus the social and economic development of the Jewish State of Israel.

Does it bother you that the book was made up by people who hated Jews?

A court claimed it was a forgery. I'm not sure if the work was a forgery or not. Either way, I found the book to ring true based on current events. .....

(COMMENT)

There was a time that I was interested in the Quatrains of Nostradamus; in my mind I could make the obscure fortunetelling and tarot readings match the events of today. But, for a document that is not authentic, The Protocols have seen many by people use this to demonize the Jews for campaign and plan for global domination.

Most Respectfully,
R

So I take it that you have never read the book?

No, it's not a fortune telling type of book or based on occultic prophecy.

The Protocols just exposes in detail, the political goals and duplicitous agenda of the Zionists in their quest for land and power. .....

 

[The Irish Ram]

What is it you think I missed? Is there not a DNA code in singled celled life forms?

You missed a lot but this one you did get.

Is DNA random? What does science say about randomness?

You fail to understand that evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key. If you had an large box of letters and spilled them onto a table the odds that they would match Shakespare's Hamlet are infinitesimally small. However some would match and if you removed every letter that didn't match and spilled them out again some more would match. It wouldn't take very long to get to Hamlet with this selective pressure.

Where are all of those "transitional" bones?

Every bone is a transitional bone, every fossil a transitional fossil.

How difficult is it for an eye to form correctly?

Not difficult at all if you have enough time.

Can it happen by chance?

No and it didn't.

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:

Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.

 

[alang1216]

All bullshit alang. Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet. Adapting is not the same thing as mutating.
One single cell is not, as Darwin believed, simple life form to complex forms. It is complex from the very first living cell. To create a different species from one that already exists, DNA would have to mutate, and continue to make the exact mistake without mutating again for millions of years. DNA attempts to self correct.

No BS. While it is true Natural selection had nothing to do with the beginning of life on this planet it is not true that the first life on earth was a cell. Cells are very complex and the product of millions (billions?) of years of natural selection on even simpler life forms. Probably DNA was not even in the first life but you should understand that once DNA has been changed that change will be passed to succeeding generations.

No, not every bone is transitional. To the contrary, my femur is the same as my mother's femur, because my DNA knows how to create one. So did my mother's DNA. Neither DNA broke with tradition. There are no 1/2 monkey 1/2 human remains to be found when there should be millions of them.

Your DNA is not the same as your mother's so your femur is not the same. Your 1/2 & 1/2 comment demonstrates you don't understand evolution theory at a fundamental level.

As for the eye, it is extremely complex form the git go. Even Darwin disagrees with you:

Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary theory, wrote in regards to the difficulties of applying evolution to the eye. “… that the eye … could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Darwin was a great pioneer but he lived almost 150 years ago. Much has been learned since. You need to catch up.

Had Darwin known about DNA we would have never heard of Darwin.

Absurd. DNA fits neatly into evolution science.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
View attachment 152757


nature provides such a proof from a land creature to an avian, observable and verified - without an intermediary transition.

That is not correct use of the word, "proof". It also is not even evidence. It is easily explained without the need to introduce your magical thinking, nor is it compelling. Stop using the words "evidence" and "proof" in your diatribes. For accuracy, substitute " kinda sorta feels like" and "because I say so".

.

That is not correct use of the word, "proof". It also is not even evidence. It is easily explained without the need to introduce your magical thinking, nor is it compelling. Stop using the words "evidence" and "proof" in your diatribes. For accuracy, substitute " kinda sorta feels like" and "because I say so".

View attachment 152759

incontestable proof of a transition from one being into another ... without an intermediary stage. - suck on it fort fun ...


without the need to introduce your magical thinking -


... and where is the being during the process.

"incontestable proof of a transition from one being into another ... without an intermediary stage. - suck on it fort fun ..."

Hello .... McFly..... those are not different beings... seriously man, take a high school level science course! And of course there is an intermediate stage... several, actually. You can literally watch the nymph form the adults structures slowly. Where DO you get this laughable nonsense?

.

those are not different beings

they are different beings, one is bound to land the other has wings the same would be true of a human that grew wings they would be two different beings your assumption of DNA constraint is without substance the DNA is not the controlling factor.

an evolutionary transition without an intermediary stage is verifiable and observed as per the original discourse of disbelief by that poster.

And of course there is an intermediate stage...

again from the original poster, intermediate stages are required for proof is inaccurate when the being transforms from one to another the process eventually becomes metaphysical single stage irregardless the creature. the intermediate stages are the aberrations or test runs for the metaphysical process that is not required though occasionally observed.

"they are different beings, one is bound to land the other has wings"

False. They are the exact same being: a cicada. "Growing wings" is a silly, arbitrary standard. There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it, and we can explain every detail in purely materialistic terms. You are trying to introduce magical nonsense where none is required to explain anything.

.

There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about it, and we can explain every detail in purely materialistic terms.

- link, you have zero credibility for your foolhardy and absurd statement(s) that germinate from your hollowed cranium.

They are the exact same being: a cicada. "Growing wings" is a silly, arbitrary standard.

they are grown without an intermediate transitional stage by a metaphysical presence not associated with cicada exclusively that is the mechanism for all evolutionary change, the relay from the origin genome to species and the proof of their existence through progression.