Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Believer, Agnostic or Atheist?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by benplace View Post
    Everyone that points to a creator because everything fits together so well doesn't understand the amount of time involved.
    Also it's a super cherry picked stance bro. There's plenty of **** in nature that was designed, if we want to call it that, poorly.

    Anomalocaris Anomalocaris likes this.

    Comment


      #12
      "If you took every book and record of every religion and destroyed it, 1000 years from now, those religions would NEVER return as the same. Ever. There might be religions, but they would be different.
      "If you took every book and text about science and destroyed it, 1000 years from now, they would ALL be back. Exactly the same with the exact same information."

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by Anomalocaris View Post
        I make Dawkins and Hitch (RIP) look like the Pope
        Richard Dawkins is the cultural Pope.​

        Comment


          #14
          Atheists are presumptuous, so are believers, as I paraphrase Socrates. Agnosticism I see as the only rational choice for rational men.

          The belief that I have in something rather than nothingness as a creator is not absolute or religious. I do not use the magnificence of earthly landscapes to promote a god. Water produced the Grand Canyon, not God. But maybe the laws of physics are God's.

          In fact, the current theory goes that the expansion of the universe creates new space constantly from nothing. Whatever is outside the universe is not defined space, as we know it.



          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Mr Mitts View Post
            Atheists are presumptuous, so are believers, as I paraphrase Socrates. Agnosticism I see as the only rational choice for rational men.

            The belief that I have in something rather than nothingness as a creator is not absolute or religious. I do not use the magnificence of earthly landscapes to promote a god. Water produced the Grand Canyon, not God. But maybe the laws of physics are God's.

            In fact, the current theory goes that the expansion of the universe creates new space constantly from nothing. Whatever is outside the universe is not defined space, as we know it.


            Hey what a coincidence, I was just saying the other day to my mate, Crusty John, that I dont use the magnificence of earthly landscapes to promote a god. He was well impressed with what I just said.

            Comment

            Working...
            X
            TOP