Run while you can!

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

  1. Christianity?


    #59912012-01-12 05:50:14jackofd said:

    I just want to ask 2 questions 1)who believes in Christ
    2)why do you don't/believe in Christ

  2. #60262012-01-12 08:02:57Momimochi said:

    What @Ecstasy said.

    Don't believe in Jesus because I believe in Evolution. There's all the solid proof that we need woth the Chimpanzees to the humanoids to us humans right now. And plus, the evolution theories are explained pretty fucking well with fucking brick solid evidence whereas the bible is mostly based on theories. Also, let us remember that the bible has gone through THOUSANDS of translations so we don't even know if it's really that authentic. No, I don't believe in Jesus, but I DO however, believe that there was a greater force out there that started the universe.

  3. #60462012-01-12 11:42:14AlphaHikari_1A14 said:

    Looks like I will be the first person on here that does believe in him. I like in an area and home where God is number one to most people, so I was really influenced to believe in him. I don't mind believing though because it gives me something to think about when I'm bored.

  4. #60822012-01-12 16:14:05JoJoBird said:

    Believes in God and Science. I know wtf? Its like a plot twist from M. Night Shamalamalyn himself. WOAH MINDBENDING CONFLICTING IDEALS SERVING AS ONE. HOW DOES ONE FUNCTION?!

  5. #61042012-01-12 18:40:26 *HutchHutchenson said:

    Here's my beef with evolution: They claim the earth is like a "bajillion years old". They also say the sun is getting smaller. By this logic, if it was billions of years ago the sun would have been so huge that the earth would have burnt up long ago. <---Christian and proud, son!

  6. #61422012-01-12 22:39:20girts521 said:

    1.I dont believe in Christ,or in any other relegion. 2.Iam atheist,I look at religion from different point,Iam interested in meany different religions like christianity,buddhism,paganism and even satanism which is really interesting actually.

  7. #62992012-01-13 21:33:04kloadheart said:

    1) yes. i'm christian presbyterian 2) i actually grew up with it but really, God has done many things for me and it may sound like bullcrap, but that's my own opinion. hate on me if u want :P

  8. #64472012-01-14 17:05:33Izaya said:

    "Here's my beef with evolution: They claim the earth is like a "bajillion years old". They also say the sun is getting smaller. By this logic, if it was billions of years ago the sun would have been so huge that the earth would have burnt up long ago."

    I'm going to assume you're not trolling here.

    The earth is estimated to be 4 and a half billion years old. The sun, while it is losing mass, remains at a roughly constant radius. Over a longer length of time however, it is expanding, not shrinking. From wiki: 'Stars similar to our Sun gradually grow in size until they reach a red giant phase, after which the core collapses into a dense white dwarf and the outer layers are expelled as a planetary nebula'

  9. #65532012-01-15 02:20:53BboyNoblesse said:

    Isn't there a missing link or something in the chain bringing chimpanzees and humans together?

    My problem with Science: It doesn't prove anything. The scientific method itself shows this. The experimental process has you test things over and over again and it may be the 9 millionth time with the same results, but it doesn't prove that those results will always happen. You can never be 100% sure that the outcome will happen again. You can be fairly sure and probably bet your life on the outcome, but it still doesn't prove that it will happen again. It's probable, but not definite.

    I see little difference between those who believe in a religion and those who believe in science. Religion is flawed, but so is science.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

  10. #66222012-01-15 08:24:04JoJoBird said:

    What theory am I thinking of where it says that inclusion of the observer changes the result of the experiment? I saw it in a streamlined explanation of Quantum Physics called "What the bleep do we know?" Just had to ask since its relevant and I had the question.

  11. #68962012-01-16 02:11:13BboyNoblesse said:

    @DarkChaplain Did I say it isn't reliable? No, I said it didn't prove anything. As far as working, hell yeah science works. I never said it didn't, you just think I did. Also, I don't really see a problem with my logic. For something to be true, it needs to be irrefutable. Science is refutable, therefore it isn't true.

  12. #71132012-01-17 01:18:47TokoyamiSenshi said:

    @BboyNoblesse and @DarkChaplain:

    It is hard to get over the fact, but in this universe, there is not a single thing we can tell for sure and I don't see that changing anytime soon. That is the nature of science. Science itself describes it's own uncertainty. In fact, it measures it's own uncertainty!

    Everything in existence boils down to data. But not absolute data as we like to think. Every single form of data we measure whether by our 5 senses, by a ruler or by super-sensitive instruments at CERN has a (watch this) certain uncertainty. We can measure that uncertainty and explain why it is there.

    The way modern physics sees the universe, it's not a single state of things(truth), it's a sea of possibilities from which only one is chosen with a certain probability every time we measure something.

    But that doesn't logically connect to the conclusion that:

    1. science is a lie
    2. God is the only possible answer
    3. evolution is totally wrong
    4. Earth is only 4000 years old
    5. we were all created from a single couple inspite having a much wider gene pool than it would have been possible to get normally

    Indeed, there are missing links between a monkey and a man. In fact, I myself do not believe we evolved in a natural way. But tbh, I'd be less surprised if we were genetically engineered by some other civilization than if we were hand-crafted by God. That one is just my personal impression, seeing how we have scientific methods which can measure the age of all things carbon(read all things on earth) quite accurately.

    @JoJoBird: What you saw is a very simple principle. You see, in order to measure something, you have to probe it. In our universe, everything is energy. And if you want to know something about an object, you have to force it to exchange energy. a mundane example, your eyes. If you want to see an object, you shed light on it. Light is energy. It gets absorbed by electrons in matter and ther re-emitted into your eyes, "tainted" with data on what it interacted with. Now on a macroscopic scale, you won't destroy your house if you look at it, but...

    If you want to know where an electron is, you have to hit it with something that interacts with it. The smaller the better, so you naturally take a photon. But once you hit an electron with a photon, you actually move the electron. The energy a photon has is enough to change an electron's velocity considerably. So what you've done is equivalent to lighting up your house with a 300MW laser. You may get an image back the instant before your house disperses in all directions and all 3 aggregate states, but even if you know exactly how that house looked like, it no longer exists there!

    That's why we're having trouble describing really small systems; we can't probe them without considerably changing their state.

    Wow, that was a lot of text.