File :-(, x, )
Favorite NASA Pictures Amicable Herculean !FSz.JZN63o
Post your favorite NASA pics.

Go!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
I think you meant "post yer favorite faked moon landing pics!"
>> Anonymous
>>418739

I think you were going to type "I'm a socket wrench" but that came out instead.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Astronauts don't take good interior shots nowadays, they're all flat and blown out with flash-- this is a great portrait from apollo 7 with a real camera- a Hasselblad.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>418739
They faked the moon landings 6 times, faked an accident in space, and faked the Surveyor landings too.
>> Anonymous
>>418863

That totally helps explain that laser reflector dish up there on the moon, huh? Oh, shit, don't forget all them rocks!

We damn well know I can't prove they did land on the moon and more than you can prove they didn't. They sure did make a bunch of pretty pictures, though, huh?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>418867
even the rover was made out of paper and duct tape
>> Anonymous
>>418681
Fake. the earth is bigger than the moon. they just shooped the moon in a blue color in this staged pic.
>> Anonymous
That was all faked, ya know.
>> Anonymous
Fake
>> Ludwig Van Beefoven !mp2ihX70ug
>>418739
>>418867
>>418876
>>419056
>>419122
go back to your fucking caves morons.

let me break it down so you understand

MOON LANDING : REAL
JESUS : FAKE

wake the fuck up.
>> McVitie's Jaffa Cakes
I love all these people who say the moon landing was fake. Do these people know you can look through a big telescope and SEE the moon landing site with all the stuff they left there lying around?
>> Anonymous
>>419224
Actually it isn't possible to. To see the flag for example you'd need a telescope 200+ meters wide. Even the hubble can only see objects on the moon that are at least 60-70 metres across.

I still believe we landed on the moon, and the observable landing "site" is still viewable.
>> Amicable Herculean !FSz.JZN63o
Dammit, I forgot to put my inb4.

Stupid conspiracy theorists. Why must everything be a conspiracy? The Moon landings, 9/11, Kennedy assassination, Michael Phelps in the 2008 Olympics, the list goes on.

When will you faggots shut up?
>> Anonymous
>>419237
There's questions that have invalid official answers that people want the truth to. Moon landing is real though. Those conspiracists are idiots.
>> Anonymous
MythBusters totally busted all of the conspiracy theorists' top arguments. Love those guys.
>> Anonymous
>>419235
You can see the shadow the lander casts with a decent telescope.
>> Anonymous
>>419216
Actually Jesus was a real historical figure. I think you meant
GOD: FAKE.
>> Anonymous
ITT: faggotry.
>> Amicable Herculean !FSz.JZN63o
Meh, the Apollo 11 flag was blown over when the ascent stage of the LEM launched off the descent stage.
>> Anonymous
Shut the hell up you stupid faggots.

BOTH God and the moon landing are real, and neither will conform to your gay little world views.
>> Anonymous
>>419880
what proof do you have? People just tell you that God and the Moon landing are real... don't be such a gulla-bull. Or even a gulla-calf.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The international space station is faked
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I­'­ll ­just le­a­v­e ­th­i­s­ ­h­ere.
>> Anonymous
>>419927
You're gay
>> Anonymous
>>419927
You’re just a jackass skeptic who doesn’t believe anything for fear of being duped. No one thinks you’re smart, faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>419927
What proof do you have that they aren't real? You get your opinion from a bunch of idiots, I get my opinion from a bunch of experts.
Moron.
>> Anonymous
Faked really? And the Soviet Union participated in the coverup?
>> Anonymous
PROOOOOOOOOVE THAT IT WAS FAKED


YET WE DON4T KNOW SHIT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE

AND PEOPLE CLAIM LIKE THEY KNOW SHIT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST


COME WHEN YOU WILL HAVE VISITED EVERY CORNER OF THE UNIVERSE

IDIOTE
>> Anonymous
>>420001
Despite your capslock, I have to agree. The only corner of the universe that I've visted in the last little while is my refrigerator to get a fresca.
>> Anonymous
The moon doesn't exist.

You're all just sheep.
>> Anonymous
>>420073
I've been there, and it's made of cheese. You're just trying to keep it for yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>420001
>PROOOOOOOOOVE THAT IT WAS FAKED


>AND PEOPLE CLAIM LIKE THEY KNOW SHIT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST

No, the real outrage is the people who claim that they know god DOES exist. It's called the burden of proof, faggot, it's yours
>> Anonymous
>>420042

Was it a good Fresca? I hope so.
>> Anonymous
>>420104
Even real undeniable proof can be rejected by people who see it as an inconvenience. The proof of God is in the obvious design of the universe, the self evident truth of which is that if there's a design then there's also a designer. However idiots like yourself chose to deny this because you're not comfortable with the responsibility that goes along with admitting the truth about anything. You'd rather just be an empty headed moral-relativist douche bag who goes around tearing down belief and tradition to posture yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>420118
It was very refreshing :D
>> Anonymous
>>420124

I LOL'd
>> Anonymous
>>420124
lol
You have no idea what you're talking about. Awesome.
>> Anonymous
>>420156
And yet you can't even explain why.
>> Anonymous
>>420124
First of all, making the assertion that the design of the universe is 'obvious' is already extremely speculative.

Even if it was obvious, this in no way proves or even suggests that there is a god that resembles mainstream religion's portrayal of god or gods.

Not comfortable with admitting the truth? Nice attempt at a psycho-analysis, faggot. Again, if we assume there was a designer it’s more likely that this designer isn’t concerned with the goings on of humans, considering the size of the universe. So what responsibility would come with admitting the truth? The truth about what, anyway? That I have to go to church every sunday or I’ll go to hell?

And I can’t even believe you’re arguing FOR religion yet you had the nerve to mention that some people reject undeniable proof because it’s inconvenient to their cause. I’ve seen hypocrisy before, but fuck.
>> Anonymous
>>420156

Say it with attitude and no one will realize that you can't even explain *why* you disagree.
>> Anonymous
>>420158

OBVIOUS: God etching the ten commandments on the moon.

NOT OBVIOUS BASED ON REALITY: Creationism and superstitious bullshit about an imaginary man in the sky.
>> Anonymous
>>420158

Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It's tiring repeating ourselves over and over again to idiots like you. It's all there if you just take a look.
>> Anonymous
>>420158

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_god#Arguments_against_belief_in_God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Scientific_critique
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The reflector dish and the rocks doesn't prove a maned landing. Even the russians had lots of pictures taken + sample returns with a remote controlled lunar modules back in the days.
To the argument on why the russians didn't call the bluff. How could they. They themselves faked Yuri Gagarin being the first kosmonaut. They had a stand-in in orbit. In case the mission would fail they would fake Gagarin landing safely anyway. They couldn't take the risk of losing their face in the cold (propaganda) war.

And by the way, namecalling is always ignorant and a waste of time.
>> orly 01 Anonymous
>>420161

>First of all, making the assertion that the design of the universe is 'obvious' is already extremely speculative.
It’s not speculation. It’s common sense. The 65billion years that some people use to explain away the implausibility of everything happening by cause and effect is actual not even close to being long enough for even a fraction of this to occur. It’s not mathematically possible. If something hasn’t happen by accident then it has happened on purpose or by ‘design’. The fact that a design proves a designer is an axiom. This is in addition to the fact that everything in nature is finite which means that whatever everything came from had to have been there forever (since the universe itself is also finite). That means that whatever everything came from is not finite and is outside of natural law (ie: supernatural). If you can’t understand this, you are seriously stupid.

>Even if it was obvious, this in no way proves or even suggests that there is a god that resembles mainstream religion's portrayal of god or gods.
The idea that there is a ‘portrayal’ of God is overstating it. What the bible puts forth about God’s nature is actually quite minimal. Any extra-biblical claims that people make about God’s personality while simultaneously claiming to be Christians is just dogma. Christianity as a faith should not be discredited for those abuses no more than science should be discredited when an overzealous anthropologist gets caught fabricating transitional forms.
To back up my argument of the limited information that we are meant to have about God and it’s self evident nature consider the issue of morality. Most people in our society and many others follow the 10 commandments to the letter without even knowing it even though many are not Christians. It’s part of our nature, which begs the question, why?
>> orly 02 Anonymous
>>420161

>Not comfortable with admitting the truth? Nice attempt at a psycho-analysis, faggot. Again, if we assume there was a designer it’s more likely that this designer isn’t concerned with the goings on of humans, considering the size of the universe. So what responsibility would come with admitting the truth? The truth about what, anyway? That I have to go to church every Sunday or I’ll go to hell?
The answer to this is simple and you not realizing it shows that you can’t wrap your head around the God concept (which may be another reason why you don’t admit it). You don’t appreciate the implications of not accepting God because you don’t fear God. You don’t fear God because you don’t believe he exists, or at least don’t admit it. Whereas if you did admit to yourself that God exists while understanding concepts like omnipotence, omnipresence, omni consciousness, etc. you would have to be stupid to not worry about what God thinks of you and your actions. By ignoring God, you don’t have to worry about it. It’s what’s referred to as ‘selective hearing’. No psycho-analysis necessary. Also, the idea that God created us but doesn’t care what we do is stupid on its face.
>> orly 03 Anonymous
>>420161

>And I can’t even believe you’re arguing FOR religion yet you had the nerve to mention that some people reject undeniable proof because it’s inconvenient to their cause. I’ve seen hypocrisy before, but fuck.
What undeniable proof would that be that I as a Christian am denying? If you’re talking about science, don’t bother. Science in man’s interpretation of nature, which God created. Science is what proves the complexity and undeniable design of the universe, and is in no way in logical opposition to the idea of God. The only time one contradicts the other is when people have twisted the facts (of either) as per their own agendas. People like to monopolize the flow of information in order to manipulate people, profit, etc. and yes fraudulent Christians have done that plenty as well.
>> Anonymous
>>420169
>>420173
>>420183
samefag copying and pasting.

God forbid you should have to actual articulate those prefab opinions of yours.
>> oolber's anyone? STFU orly
So, you completely sure the universe is finite, eh? Oolber's Paradox anyone? No..?
>> Anonymous
>>420169
>>420173
>>420183

Atheists are just agnostics who hate Christians. How can you not believe in God when he’s all you dumb shits ever talk about. You regurgitate Coles notes versions of theories you can’t even understand and therefore require as much if not more faith than any religion. The atheist’s view of the big bang theory as fact adverse to God’s existence just proves you don’t have the capacity for the subject. A giant cataclysmic event in which the universe abruptly unraveled…. Ya, it’s not like that’s EXACTLY what it says in Genesis or anything… dumbass
>> holy shit you're stupid Anonymous
>>420201

The universe being finite is accepted scientific fact. Everything in the universe including the universe itself runs on some manner of energy and is running out. If the universe had already been here for an infinite number of years, it would have ran out an infinite number of years ago, making our existence impossible. Recognition of this requires that you actually understand the concept of infinity however, so I won’t hold my breath.
>> Anonymous
>>420208

because it's all YOU assholes keep talking about non stop, and jamming your bullshit down ours and everyone else's throats. Your ignorance and belligerence is frustrating to put it mildly.
>> Anonymous
>>420210

in b4 "HURR HURR THE BIBLE IS ALL THE PROOF I NEED, HURR HURR" statement.
>> how can you be so dumb? Anonymous
>>420201
Oh and btw, it’s ‘Olbers' paradox’ and it is a theory proving that the universe is NOT INFINITE.

Yep that’s right… You actually managed to get it totally backwards. That’s what happens when you just repeat the things that smarting people say without ever discerning them. Way to go ass hat.
>> Anonymous
>>420212
You're such a deluded little shit it blows my mind. Christians don't get in people's faces (at least not in recent years) half as much as atheists. People like you are actively trying to erode peoples’ right to religious expression every chance you get. Don't twist things.
>> Anonymous
>>418872
"made out of paper and duct tape"
nah, I think it's a Fiero with a body kit.
>> Anonymous
>>420201
stupidest person in the thread, hands down. You proved the point, idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>420223

You're such a deluded little shit it blows my mind. Atheists and agnostics don't get in people's faces (at least not in recent years) half as much as Christians, Creationists and fundies. People like you are actively trying to erode peoples’ right to common sense, science, religious expression or lack thereof every chance you get. Don't twist things.

FIXT, NEXT
>> Anonymous
>>420232
That's not actually true though.
>> Anonymous
>>420191
c'mon EVERYONE KNOWS we lent them some photo time on our moon stage set... ;o)
>> Anonymous
>>420223

BAWWW I CAN'T HANDLE PEOPLE HAVING OPINIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM MINE BAWWW

BAWWW I CAN'T HANDLE PEOPLE USING PROVEN SCIENCE TO REFUTE / CRITICIZE MY BELIEF IN AN ANCIENT BOOK ABOUT AN INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY THAT GETS MAD WHEN I JERK OFF BAWWW
>> it's only clever to you :D Anonymous
>>420232

Playing madlibs with an opposing arguments is the worst way to respond. It’s like admitting that you don’t have a point and are skirting the issue. You can’t even begin to explain any of the things your teachers told you, can you?
>> Anonymous
>>420238
That totally explains everything!!!!... Oh wait, no it doesn't. It doesn't explain anything. Kind of like how you can't even explain what you believe. You just go along with what's trendy and construct your own 'religion' around it for your own convenience.
>> Anonymous
>>420173
>>420183
>>420201
>>420212
>>420215
>>420232
>>420238
>>420156
>>420161
>>420169
Gigantic samefag self destructing at the thought of someone with a differing opinion. You need consensus to believe anything, because you’re too weak minded to believe anything on your own. So when you find out that *GASP* some people actually believe something different than you, you get threatened and spazz out like a retard.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OR maybe you can actually go to college or university and actually, you know, LEARN something outside of bible verses.
>> Anonymous
"The 65billion years that some people use to explain away the implausibility of everything happening by cause and effect is actual not even close to being long enough for even a fraction of this to occur."

this is a FACT?

"It’s not mathematically possible."

it's not?

"If something hasn’t happen by accident.."

it's been proven that nothing has happen by accident?

"If something hasn’t happen by accident then it has happened on purpose or by ‘design’."

logic jump?

"the idea that God created us but doesn’t care what we do is stupid on its face."

it is?

"People like to monopolize the flow of information in order to manipulate people, profit, etc."

now this, this is indeed a FACT! and one that I can jump on board with 100%.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
And even if someone were to take the time and effort to explain all this proven, established science to your ass, you'd either pull out bullshit copypasta'd from the answersingenesis site or say BUT ITS OKAY I DONT NEED PROOF COZ I HAVE FAITH or some shit like that. So stop demanding answers / proof / evidence.
>> Anonymous
>>420251
What have you learned? Explain....
>> Anonymous
>>420251
HEY!!! R U DISSIN' MY NORSE BELIEFS?!?!? HURRRRR HURRRRR DURRRRR!!!!

BTW, thanks for postin that 'toon Anon, HYSTERICAL...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>420257
You can't explain anything you believe.
>> Anonymous
>>420251
>>420260
samefag

soooo gay
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
WTF are Christians doing on 4chan anyway??
>> Anonymous
gotta consider that people's religious beliefs are based on their emotions...
yer not gonna be able to change that with mere facts or even other plausible explainations...

people are just stubborn that way.
>> Anonymous
>>420265
YEAH! WTF **ARE** they doing here?!?! just by browsing here they surely will be joining the rest of us in H-E-double hockey sticks!!!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaah!
C-ya there!!!!!
>> Anonymous
>>420263
actually, no.
>> Anonymous
>>420196

Nothing you said in your first rebuttal put forward any verification that a god like those represented in religion exists.

What the bible puts forth about God’s nature is actually quite minimal? Off the top of my head, god punishing the sinners by flooding the earth. I’d say this indicates that god is vengeful in nature, and that he cares about the conduct of humans, this says enough about his nature.

I don’t have a reason to ignore god for fear of retribution. I’m a decent person. Is it so hard to accept that I just don’t believe in god? On the contrary to your claim, you’re still attempting to analyse my thought process. You’re wasting your time. I simply don’t believe in god.

And by claiming that the idea of god creating us but not caring about us is stupid, you are making the assumption that we are talking about a god that is represented in religion. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that a god as in the Christian bible exists. Who’s to say the designer of a universe so ridiculously huge cares about the affairs of life that has arisen on one tiny planet?

As for denying undeniable proof, well for one, geological evidence shows that the world is millions of years old, which contradicts the bible’s timeline.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Wow this thread turned into total fucking garbage, huh? Nice pics at the beginning, though. Thanks.
>> Anonymous
>>420258

Why? You'll just tell me fossils were put there by the devil to lead us astray and that the earth is 5,000 years old because counting the generations recorded in the Old Testament is proof while carbon dating is a load of bullshit, and then dump answersingenesis.org links as proof you're right and all of established modern science is wrong.

It's like arguing with a Flat Earther only far less entertaining and way too predictable.

Point is, all the answers you claim don't exist are out there with clear proof, but you've already decided all of them are wrong and your Bible is right, so you're just wasting everyone's time. And when people give up arguing with you for this reason, you take that as proof you're right and have won.

There, I just saved us all another long and all-too-familiar flamewar. Now somebody start posting NASA pics.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420266
...'cuz they will burn forever in the eternal pools of fire and there will be much gnashing of teeth etc. etc...

I mean *that* is surely enough to scare anyone onto the straight -n- narrow path of righteousness and faith?! isn't it?!

(pic is all I could find on sort notice google image search)
>> Anonymous
um yeah... sorry 'bout that... my post (>>418739) really took this one so far off the rails and into the woods somewhere...
I was just friggin kidding for cripes sake...
>> Anonymous
>>420277
not to mention the so OBVIOUSLY devil planted fossil dino bones...
>> Anonymous
>>420255

>this is a FACT?
Yes. There are things in this universe that are so precise while simultaneously integral to the inception and maintenance of life that they constitute an occurrence that would require more time than 65 billion years to accumulate properly without external prompting. Call it a ‘one in a trillion chance’ if you want. Note that a trillion is larger than 65 billion.

>it's not?
No. See above. It’s not mathematically possible in an infinite amount of time, let alone in 65 billion years. Sixty-five billion isn’t enough for it to happen uninterrupted, but one must also leave consideration for the chances for universal destruction and failure that 65 billion years would also constitute. This negative factor is even more true of infinity.

>it's been proven that nothing has happen by accident?
The fact that it’s not possible for it to happen by accident (see above) is the single best proof that it didn’t.

>logic jump?
No. Events occur by design or by accident. This is a fact…. Seriously dude, that one was really bad. You’re really quite a dumb shit.

>it is?
Yes it is. The act of creating life negates the possibility of indifference in the moment and immediate time prior to the act. In order to argue that God eventually became indifferent over time, you would first have to admit his existence now wouldn’t you?

>now this, this is indeed a FACT! and one that I can jump on board with 100%.
Of course you do. As stated above in this thread, people like you accept ideas a that are convenient for you. This particular one is convenient in that it is a favorite accusation of atheists against Christians. However you simply can’t allow for the fact that it’s only true of *some* Christians, and that’s because you’re a bigot :D
>> Anonymous
>>420277
then generations record in the olde testament...
funny this is mentioned... one of my friends mom who was religious, had a poster on their wall that was a family tree (she was HUGE into tracing family lineage). this tree showed her family being traced all the way back to adam and eve... of course, there were some HUGE HUGE gaps and leaps (of more then just faith) to accomplish the links... many many of their REAL ancestors were left out... too bad...
I looked at it and just laughed... I made a smart alleky comment to my (non-religious) friend something like "hey look! wow! you are sooo related *directly* to adam and eve!!! it's right here on paper!"
he wasn't amused...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
NASA FTW!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420292
well at least you *sound* like yer smart and know what time is it...

still not convinced... need this god person to come down and prove himself to me. call me Thomas.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Got any more Mercury/Gemini/Apollo specific pics?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
just rovin' around...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
The only thing that places creationism and science in opposition is carbon dating. That fact the atheists won’t allow for the possibility for this one thing to be wrong just proves how obtuse they are. Also, the way carbon dating frames the universe as being older than the biblical explanation, transfers information related influence from one group to an other. If you can’t admit that sort of thing might attract people with an agenda then you are incredibly naïve. Christians and atheists are all people. Atheists are just as capable of manipulating you for gain as Christians are.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Mexico from space...
not sure what the red spots are supposed to mark...
>> Anonymous
<3
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
...>>420315
but the atheists aren't trying to lay a massive guilt trip on me and tell me that if I don't go to their church and give them money every week then I WILL burn in a lake of fire for all eternity etc etc...

my grandfather had a saying about going to church - "same story, different week"... gotta luv it...
>> Anonymous
tl;dr

moon landing wasn't faked, get over it
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
so nebulous...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>420324
I lol'd. Great pic.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
help me! I've fallen and I can't get up!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420330
that's adam & eve right?!!!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420333
Haha, you suck George!
>> Anonymous
>>420321
I'm the poster putting up most of the creationist arguments here, and I haven't been to church in over a decade. Not to mention that when I was in church I always questioned, particularly in cases where I felt people were embellishing or projecting their own biblically unsupportable rules on others. What I believe is the very basic fundamentals of Christianity. What the faith was meant to be was far more simple than what some have tried to distort it into. Also, you don’t need to go to church to be a Christian. Belief in the fundamentals of Christianity (which are very simple) and an oath of acceptance of Christ in prayer form is the ONLY thing that makes you a Christian. Anyone telling you otherwise is misleading you or is being misled. Just remember though, if Christians as humans are fallible and capable of taking advantage then so are atheists. Now consider the fact that atheists don’t believe in a supreme moral being. They have even less reason to abstain from manipulating people.
Anyway I don’t need everyone to believe what I do. I just don’t like when people attack my beliefs. I never even broach this subject with people unless they ask for it and if you scroll up in this thread you will see fairly early one that someone just had to make a remark making fun of the belief in God. Strip away all the arguing and that comment and others like it are still bigotry (note: To anyone who is about to spazz out about that last remark, please look up ‘bigotry’ in the dictionary. It is prejudice pertaining to ideology and has nothing to do with race).
>> Anonymous
>>420342
copypastor
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420342
tl;dr post some NASA pics.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
"It’s not mathematically possible in an infinite amount of time, let alone in 65 billion years. Sixty-five billion isn’t enough for it to happen uninterrupted, but one must also leave consideration for the chances for universal destruction and failure that 65 billion years would also constitute. This negative factor is even more true of infinity."

so this idea "proves" god? what we observe in nature is just sooooo complex that it just isn't possible for it to have occurred by chance even given vast amounts of time, so chance is 100% out of the question only other option is "design", thus there must be a "designer" AKA god. and this god wants us to worship him/her/it every sunday and give him her it's "representatives" on earth our money.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420315
FYI carbon dating is only ONE method of the HUNDREDS that use radiometric dating....
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
They see me rollin'
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
"Now consider the fact that atheists don’t believe in a supreme moral being. They have even less reason to abstain from manipulating people."

but I guess it could also be said that they also could have even less reason to even care about manipulating people...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>420356
No. Greed is the chief reason to manipulate people and that has nothing to do with your walk of life. It's a temptation everyone deals with.
>> Anonymous
>>420349
>...only other option is "design

There ARE only 2 options for occurrences, accident and design. How can you not understand that? What are you 5? Seriously, explain to me how if something doesn’t happen by accident or design that it can occur?
>> safe save
>>420173
>>Richard Dawkins
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420342
>Now consider the fact that atheists don’t believe in a supreme moral being. They have even less reason to abstain from manipulating people.

What the Bible says about blind and handicapped people
21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

21:24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.


Morality FTW amirite?
>> Anonymous
>>420104

what about those holy books, how can you prove it is fake and man made?


Oh yes wait you american faggots will never try to seriously read any of those holy book with an open mind, you are so cool talking of hell as a repository of all the rock stars and shit xD
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
"Most people in our society and many others follow the 10 commandments to the letter without even knowing it even though many are not Christians."

well, boiled down the 10 commandos are pretty much "good business" for any society that wants to stick around and grow/develop... don't need the religious context...
not sure about the "to the letter" part tho' - I don't think non fanatical Xtians inadvertently follow the 10 coms TO THE LETTER...

but yes, "don't kill", "don't steal"... pretty basic building blocks/ideas that would help a group of people build a society... and I'm sure these ideas were floating around not long after we came down out of the trees and figured out that in order to survive we needed to cooperate on some level...
>> Anonymous
>>420373
the burden of proof is not upon us. there's no reason to take for granted that the bible is meaningful in any way.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
more pics less talk
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>420372
Never fails. Everyt ime someone wants to criticize Christianity they quote the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament and completely ignore the New Testament. I'm a Christian, not a Jew, jackass. We still use the Old Testament but a fundamental of Christianity was that things changed with Jesus and his example. I noticed how you make no mention of how Jesus treated people. Why is that?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420264
>> Anonymous
Christianity, like all religions, are superstitions made up to explain the (then) unexplainable, like lightning, death, why the sun rises, etc. Science, and the Scientific Method, have since allowed us to understand everything religion pretends to explain. If it can't be proven by the Scientific Method, it's probably not real. That's why the Scientific Method exists. Proof: Scientific Method says fire will consume anything flammable. God says if you have faith in him, then like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendigo, you will not be consumed. Jump into an oven and see what happens.
As for morality, the ten commandments, etc; religion - all religion - has always been a tool for social and political control.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420384
New Testament says everything in Old Testament is still valid.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420373
or course they are man made - man made the scrolls or tablets that the "stuff" was written on...
I think you meant the "contents" or "ideas" within the written words that are in the physical books...

dunno, I'm thinking there are so many contradictions and just plain crazy stuff in there - also given that not ALL of the info is there - edits have been made as well as mis-translations up the wazzoo... I wonder how fanatics can really take the bible at face value... or follow it to the letter. if that were the case you would have to, by the word of god, kill you neighbor when you see him or her "working" on a sunday... sorry I don't have the biblical ref number to point to for that "rule" but, like Prego, it's in there...

me thinks that most of it is made up stories to fill in gaps of knowledge - humans, generally, don't like things to be "unknown" and will make up things to explain gaps in knowledge... for whatever reason, these stories, no matter how wacky or "out there", provide comfort. when you get a whole lot of people believing in the same set of stories then you create a community and humans love being part of a community as we are "social animals" and it just builds from there...

the problems occur when someone else has a different story to explain the same gap in knowledge or worse, figures out how or why something is the way it is ("fills" the gap in knowledge) and it doesn't match the long believed story...

that's when egos get bruised and wars can get started...

why re there so many different belief systems in the world? why do some peeps believe in the Xtian flavour and not the buddist one hindu one or the norse one, the ancient greek one? how can ya prove that all the others are fake and yours is the only one that's "right"?

I say the answer is not knowable to us so hang the sense of it and get on with your life and stop bothering other people that may not agree with your beliefs.
>> Anonymous
>>420391
>I say the answer is not knowable to us so hang the sense of it and get on with your life and stop bothering other people that may not agree with your beliefs.

Like I said, I only get my back up about this stuff when people start to mock Christianity. It's bigotry regardless of how you frame it. Why is it not ok to be anti-Semitic or call all Muslims terrorists, or make even the slightest negative observation about any culture anywhere, unless it's Christian, White, and Male? I hate double standards.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420384
guess I wasn't aware that jesus actually came out and said fuk the olde testament boys, here's the new deal!
but I certainly wouldn't deny that some Xtian groups see and treat it that way...
after all, all this stoning and killing business over such silly acts can get pretty messy and prolly land you in jail - in most societies anyway. so would need a way to get rid of all those inconvenient rules....hmmmmmm....

pic is slighly more dimensional version of NASA logo...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420393
need a thicker skin my friend... can't let the slightest "mock" of your beliefs get yer panties in such a ruffled state...

or else you may end up running riot in the streets like those muslims when those oh so offensive cartoons were printed in a newspaper...

OMG! people get like so defensive about things religious!!!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>420401
you're a bigot
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>420393
why do you feel it's ONLY against white male Xtianz? 4chan is an "equal opportunity bigotry generating machine! (tm)"
>> Anonymous
>>420403
OK.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>420404
I don't. I just think that Christianity is perceived as part of white culture and is open to criticism based on the cockeyed bullshit we know as political correctness. In actuality everything should be open to criticism. That also includes other religions, cultures and yes, science. Maybe the dudes in here who throw a fit when someone doesn't think science is all that's out there are the ones who need to grow a thicker skin. And that’s the really stupid thing. I actually believe in the laws of science. I just believe in more than that.
>> Anonymous
>>420407
i just mock christianity because it's absurd, no other reason
>> Anonymous
Just read this whole thread and wow. If you dudes really think religion is so stupid then you should try explaining it better. You guys are way to used to being surrounded by people who absorb the same crap you do without question.
>> Anonymous
television lies
>> Anonymous
>>420412
this is the internet man, there's a religious thread every 5 seconds. i've long since grown tired of explaining my opinions on religion. these discussions are completely inconsequential because neither side ever gives a shit what the other says. if you want to know why people think most major organized religions are absurd then just google it.
>> Anonymous
>>420412
And you pro-religion people need to explain why religion isn't stupid better. "Because I have faith" or "Because that's what I believe in" doesn't cut it.
>> Anonymous
>>420441
also this. if it doesn't occur to you that the one who claims there is some all powerful unseen being is the one the burden of proof lays upon, then we're just at an impasse.
>> Anonymous
>>420407
"cockeyed bullshit we know as political correctness."

hey hey hey, I'm with you brutha' on that one. all this PC crap has gotten way outta hand and I (think I) see where yer commin from regarding "why is it not OK to mock this, this, and this group/ideas, but it's OK to do so to this group..." that kinda' puts a crease in my panties from time to time as well... I'm saying everyone is open to bigotry - not that that is really a "good" thing but it's just a fact of life. so best grow a thicker skin and ignore it.

I just don't need to have the answer of if there is or is not a god... it really has no bearing on what happens in my day to day life - I'm perfectly OK with leaving some gaps and holes in knowledge as I figure it will be answered when ya die - either god will be there and all that jazz or the mind will just die and then rot in the ground... in the meantime, I'll just live my little life and not worry about it. no point in stressing about things that I can't answer.

sorry no mo' NASA pics...
>> Anonymous
>>420441
Did you even read this thread? The one religious guy put down more scientific fact than anyone here.

ITT: atheists who worship science but don't understand it.
>> Anonymous
My cat is eating kibble
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
I find it difficult to believe that the universe came into being without the intervention of a thinking, organising force. therefore i dont cast doubt on the possibility of a higher force beyond our understanding.

Einstein and Dali felt the same way.
>> Anonymous
>>420448
no, i didn't read it, but i lol at the idea he put down any scientific fact to support this idea and i will go read it.
>> Anonymous
oh god, before i make a post on this, i want to make sure...are you talking about this guy

>>420196
>>420198
>>420199

as laying down scientific fact? because lol at that shit.
>> Anonymous
>>420451
i never really understood this line of thinking. to make sure, are you thinking along the lines of the people that say the universe has to be carefully crafted for us to allow us to exist, etc?

it's very obvious that the only way we can exist is if the conditions for human life are fulfilled, so whether it's infinitely unlikely that the universe would form this way or not is not particularly relevant.
>> Anonymous
>>420453

Umm, that stuff was spot on. The first part is actually grounded in the law of causality which is undisputed.
>> Anonymous
http://www.torrentreactor.net/torrents/1697694/I-Don't-Have-Enough-Faith-to-be-an-Atheist
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>420455

Im not sure if its that, im not trying to say " OMG humans are the creation of a higher being", im trying to say i find it hard to believe that the universe, in all of its brilliance, with all of its "built" nature (DNA, flowers etc) was not aided in some way by a guiding force.

Dali believed that the nature and design of dna proved existance of a God, Einstein believed that science would one day prove the existance.
>> Anonymous
>>418681
>>420457
i'll try and explain why i think it's nonsense.

>The 65billion years that some people use to explain away the implausibility of everything happening by cause and effect is actual not even close to being long enough for even a fraction of this to occur. It’s not mathematically possible.

Is this guy seriously claiming that he knows whether or not it's possible for the universe to have evolved into its current state in 65 billion years?
>> Anonymous
>>418681
>If something hasn’t happen by accident then it has happened on purpose or by ‘design’. The fact that a design proves a designer is an axiom. This is in addition to the fact that everything in nature is finite which means that whatever everything came from had to have been there forever (since the universe itself is also finite). That means that whatever everything came from is not finite and is outside of natural law (ie: supernatural). If you can’t understand this, you are seriously stupid.

It seems to me like you are trying to prove in this paragraph that God (the "designer") exists, which seems a pretty bold claim from somebody on 4chan. You basically just said "Is it an accident that the universe exists as it does? No? Then it was by design, which means there is a designer, which means God exists."

I certainly make no claim to understand the origins of the universe, but that is precisely why I have to question your assertion that the universe's current existence is not by accident. Certainly causality would stipulate that every step must have been caused, and so if you take it back far enough there would need to be a cause for the Big Bang, which at this point seems contradictory. However, if your explanation is that there is one who caused the universe, what caused him? This step of thinking is obvious, most people have probably given it thought at some point in their life, but I've yet to find anyone give a satisfactory explanation as to why it's ok for the universe to have to be caused but for God (in this case the designer) to not have to follow that same rule.
>> Anonymous
>The answer to this is simple and you not realizing it shows that you can’t wrap your head around the God concept (which may be another reason why you don’t admit it). You don’t appreciate the implications of not accepting God because you don’t fear God. You don’t fear God because you don’t believe he exists, or at least don’t admit it. Whereas if you did admit to yourself that God exists while understanding concepts like omnipotence, omnipresence, omni consciousness, etc. you would have to be stupid to not worry about what God thinks of you and your actions. By ignoring God, you don’t have to worry about it. It’s what’s referred to as ‘selective hearing’. No psycho-analysis necessary. Also, the idea that God created us but doesn’t care what we do is stupid on its face.

I don't even understand what your point is supposed to be here. It follows that if one does not believe in God, then one would not be afraid of its implications, as they do not believe in the cause of these implications.
>> Anonymous
>What undeniable proof would that be that I as a Christian am denying? If you’re talking about science, don’t bother. Science in man’s interpretation of nature, which God created. Science is what proves the complexity and undeniable design of the universe, and is in no way in logical opposition to the idea of God. The only time one contradicts the other is when people have twisted the facts (of either) as per their own agendas. People like to monopolize the flow of information in order to manipulate people, profit, etc. and yes fraudulent Christians have done that plenty as well.

I suppose I agree with what is being said here. Science does not preclude the possibility of a God in any way.
>> Anonymous
>>420465
>However, if your explanation is that there is one who caused the universe, what caused him?
Nothing. He is infinite. Remember, the law of causality only pertains to natural law. This dictates that whatever the true origin of the universe is has to be infinite transcend natural law, hence the term 'supernatural'. Supernatural law is probably just a larger series of laws that natural law resides within. The supernatural is probably just too big and foreign to understand, but it’s probably the same in essence as science, in that it would have rules.
>> Anonymous
Basically my point is that we don't know shit, but I don't agree that because the universe is infinitely complex that it necessitates a creator. The pocketwatch theory for creationism certainly follows in its own case, but when you start to try to apply it to very complex things that we do not understand the nature of, it begins to falter in my opinion.

i.e., sure, a watch implies a watch maker. But to say a big bang implies a big bang maker is pretty arrogant. We understand what it takes to make a watch, but we don't understand what it takes to create the big bang.
>> Anonymous
>>420470
Yeah, this is one of the explanations I've been given that I don't agree is satisfactory. Saying "because he is God" is a tautology, which is loosely what you are saying here.

I agree that it seems likely that it would take something outside the boundaries of natural law to "create" the universe, but we know too little to make that claim as a certainty, in my opinion.
>> Anonymous
>>420470

>The supernatural is probably just too big and foreign to understand

But you do, right? LOL
>> Anonymous
>>420467
I always thought that science was simply meant to try to figure out or explain the physical natural world around us - therefore proving or disproving a god, which is in the realm of the supernatural, falls outside of it's abilities (to prove or disprove)...
or am I making a logic jump to assume that something like a god is in the supernatural realm and not the observable physical realm we exist in?
dunno, I think I'm somewhat smart and can think logically but I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box... after all I'm spending my time on 4chan...
>> Anonymous
Here's the real problem you faggots.

SCIENCE: Here are the facts and the evidence. What conclusion can we draw from this?

RELIGION: Here is our conclusion. What facts and evidence can we collect regardless of context to reinforce what we've already decided to be true without proof?

/thred
>> Anonymous
>>420474
That makes sense to me. It seems, by nature, impossible to disprove that God exists.
>> Anonymous
>>420471
It’s not just the complexity of the universe, it’s the convenience. If everything started at say the big bang, then life already exists but isn’t evolved yet. So the next 65 billion years that the universe and life has to adapt, is supposed to be enough for it to get to this point. The problem with that is that the 65 billion years provides as much if not more opportunities for the life that started to be destroyed, in which case another event similar to the big bang would have to occur again. It’s a double edged sword.
>> Anonymous
>>420475
As troll as this is, I do agree. This is how it has worked for quite a while now. Organized religion seems to play catch up with scientific advances, trying to explain why God can still exist even in light of new knowledge.
>> Anonymous
>>420475

To clarify: Christians / Creationists have already decided that they're right and everyone else is wrong, and are simply cherry-picking for proof.

They'll ignore dinosaur fossils, ice bores, Darwin, epidemics, common sense, and centuries of proven science to find anything that might just look like proof that science is wrong and therefore the Bible is right (regardless of, say, context or any real understanding of what the fuck they're talking about). They'll ignore everything else.

How (and why) should you discuss anything with someone that's already decided they're right and can't possibly be wrong?
>> Anonymous
>>420477
>If everything started at say the big bang, then life already exists but isn’t evolved yet.

I wouldn't say it existed at that time, it only existed at the point it evolved into life, but this may be just semantics.

As for there being opportunities for the universe, or just life, to be destroyed in the time we've had, yes, this is certainly the case. But the only way we can still be here is if this never happened. Our continued existence does not prove that the universe will not implode tomorrow, merely that it has not imploded yet.
>> Anonymous
Why can people imagine things that supposedly don’t exist if there is not possibility of there existence?
>> Anonymous
>>420476
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
>> Anonymous
>>420481
Do you mean that if it possible to imagine God, it implies it is possible for God to exist? If this is what you're saying, I suppose this is true, but it doesn't add anything to the argument.
>> Anonymous
>>420478

Yup. But btw I was totally not trying to be a troll. I'm an ex-Christian fundie Creationist turned atheist who now realizes what it means to use common sense and think for myself for a change.
>> Anonymous
according to some old bible texts god walked around helping the hebrews in what could be accurately described as a mech warrior!? explain this christfags
>> Anonymous
>>420482
I don't see how that is relevant to what I said. Whom the burden of proof lays upon is not what I was talking about. I merely said I don't think it is possible to disprove his existence, not that one is obligated to do so.
>> Anonymous
>>420486

If you claim God exists, then it's up to you to provide evidence. It's not up to everyone else to "prove" God doesn't exist. It's like proving invisible pink unicorns don't exist either.
>> Anonymous
">If everything started at say the big bang, then life already exists but isn’t evolved yet."

not sure where the idea that life HAS to have started at the point of BB is coming from?

what if life in some form is found on some other planet?
>> Anonymous
>>420487
Again, that's not what I was saying. I said I don't think it is possible to disprove God's existence. I agree, the one that claims God exists and hopes to convert someone bears the burden of proof, but, again, that's not what I was talking about.
>> Anonymous
Science can’t be used to disprove God’s existence because he exists outside of natural law. No matter what happens in science it’s just a way of interpreting nature and doesn’t even speak to the idea of what created/caused nature itself.
>> Anonymous
>>420489

Ah shit. Sorry. But yeah, agreed, I see what you're saying.

ZOMGWTF TWO PEOPLE AGREEING ON SOMETHING
>> Anonymous
>>420490
I agree with the first sentence, but not so much with the second. I don't see why it is not possible for science to be able to find some really bizarre, exotic explanation for the beginning of causation. I just can't conceive of it myself.
>> Anonymous
>>420488
Claiming that life didn't necessarily start at the big bang to detract for the point that the entire 65 billion year was also time enough for life to likely be destroyed, leaves less time for life to evolve to this point from whenever it did start. This makes it even more implausible.
>> Anonymous
>>420495
Well, we'd really have to settle on a definition of what constitutes life, something that humanity has obviously not been capable of yet as we still argue over the abortion issue. However, I think the way it should be looked at is that the Big Bang was the beginning of the very long process that brought us to where we are today. Calling that evolution would certainly be a stretch. I would hesitate to call anything before the existence of whatever organism was first in the chain that eventually became us evolution.
>> Anonymous
>>420483
I can imagine that UFOs and green (or grey) aliens exist and I would also say it is possible they exist... just don't have proof [yet]

or maybe - and this is nothing new - that the "god" of biblical times was in fact some alien...

you know, Carl Sagan said something along the lines of someone with far far advanced technology would appear as a god (or magic) to a civilization far far lwer on the tech developement scale...
humans wre pretty damn ow on the tech scale back in biblical times... I would ganger to think that if someone were able to go back to 1 AD with today's technology in hand they would easily be taken as some sort of god... ya know, heal someone with simple anti-biotics and you'd have a good start to a religion! ;o)

go back even further and it'd be even easier...
>> Anonymous
>>420493
That’s true, but if something caused causation it is preexistent and outside of causation, and is by definition supernatural since everything in natural law is subject to the law of causality. That’s why the law of causality makes evident the existence of the supernatural, but not necessarily the existence of God. For the existence of God another explanation is required. The supernatural simply provides a plausible setting.
>> Anonymous
>>420498
Yeah, I agree that that's possible. I'm not sure that if something exists outside of causation it has to be supernatural in a Designer/God sense, though. Having a universe that exists without causation could be possible, I think, it's just not something humans can really imagine, just like we can't really imagine a universe without time. That's just not how our brain works, or at least is trained to work.
>> Anonymous
>>420495
is "implausible" = "impossible" tho'?

is 65 billion years even accurate?
>> Anonymous
>>420500
The consensus in the scientific community is 13.7 billion years, give or take a few hundred million, I believe.
>> Anonymous
>>420499
I know but what you’re describing there is what I would term supernatural, once again the supernatural not being the same thing as God, but rather a different environment with different rules.
>> Anonymous
>>420502
Yeah, I know what you mean, supernatural just being a set of rules outside of the rules of nature. I just meant that while it's possible for us to have to step outside of our known rules to explain some things, it could easily be something aside from the classical sense of a God, which I think you agree with.
>> Anonymous
>>420504
To clarify again, supernatural just has a context of magic or, in our case, God, and I wanted to explain that that was not what I meant by supernatural.
>> Anonymous
>>420504
I believe in God in the biblical sense and I think the ideas people have about God are his doing, but I don’t have much use for organized religion with all its rules and distortions that make it impossible for normal people to see the simple truth: that it’s just a belief and the you’re not supposed to ‘know’. That’s why even though I think we can prove the existence of the supernatural, we can’t prove the existence of God. If God does exist and he revealed his existence to us we would be way too effected by it. We would automatically go along with God’s rules because of the impression his power would have. We would pretty much lose our ability to chose things which is basically like having no freedom.
>> Anonymous
>>420506
Ya I know. I don't think God and the supernatural are the same thing either.
>> Anonymous
stepping back...
"leaves less time for life to evolve"...
is it "proven" somewhere how much time it would take ot evolve "us" from whatever the first inkling of "us" was?
are we making it a fact that 65 billion isn't enough time? and what is that based off of?

also always bothered me that bible does not mention dinosaurs (or any of the other weird creatures we see in fossils between dino times and more recent recorded history) yet we have plenty of these fossils to show they did indeed exist, and long before humans in the form we know them today... did no one find or see these bones 3K BC? tho I'm sure if they had they'd have no clue as to what they were and/or surely make up a story to explain them... but I'm not even aware of any such stories...
>> Anonymous
>>420514
The bible mentions Leviathan and Behemoth, which sound exactly like dinosaurs.
>> Anonymous
>>420510
Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I've just never been comfortable with just belief as my only link to the religion, I just don't really have enough faith or I'm not really comfortable placing that much faith in something I haven't really been given a reason to believe in. Unfortunately for me it probably would take something pretty close to God revealing himself, which I agree would certainly ruin whatever sense of free will and freedom we have.

Though, when you add things like Hell into the mix, I'm much more comfortable with just knowing what God wants and doesn't want if it allows me to dodge that bullet :P
>> Anonymous
>>420514
The bible mentions satyrs and unicorns too. I realize that doesn’t help my case though. lol
>> Anonymous
>>420510
but isn't that exactly what happens in the bible? god shows up all the time and beats down the ancient hebrew's enemies and causes a earth-wide flood and he talks to people directly, parts the ocean and all kinds of other huge observable things...
then, all of a sudden he disappears - we don't see any more massive displays...
>> Anonymous
>>420521
There’s actually a very good explanation for that that most of us might actually be old enough to have witnessed partially. That is that regardless of the magnitude of an event only the witnesses present have first hand knowledge, and that first hand knowledge dies with them and thus only lasts a single generation. Subsequent generations only have second or third hand knowledge via anecdotes, which is far easier to forget or even disregard (or never believe in the first place). Hence: ‘how soon we forget’.
>> Anonymous
we don't see any more massive displays...

Wut????

You missed the Obama rally in Mile High Stadium?
>> Anonymous
No, he’s right. One of the major themes of the Old Testament is God getting angry because he always has to do things to jog peoples’ memories. This actually helps explain the harsh nature of the Old Testament (i.e. God is harsher with people when they stray because they have no excuse due to his constantly making himself known). The idea being that God’s leniency towards human disbelief parallels his amount of visibility at a given time.
>> Anonymous
>>420526
Disney on Ice > Obama
>> Anonymous
'm much more comfortable with just knowing what God wants and doesn't want if it allows me to dodge that bullet

that's "belief" via fear - fear of something else that isn't proven... that just become silly...

going off on a tangent::
I thought the concept of "hell" came in a later incarnation of hebrew beliefs - i.e. at the start of the religion there was no hell.

also saw some biblical scholar say that "hell" is our translation of another hebrew word that was the name of the place outside the jerusalem's walls where the cities trash was burned... hence it developed the concept of the fire and brim stone etc etc and then if you were bad you'd be sent to hell - the hell right outside the walls where the trash is burned - i.e. not a pleasant place you;d want to go under any circumstances...
later we get Dante's Inferno and this seems to have stuck as the default concept of hell...

BTW the location of the trash burning is now a nice green park with trees...
>> Anonymous
>>420547
then we have the new evangelicals that believe in the "rapture"... now from what I understand, this concept is no where to be found in the bible...
thoughts?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
moon base alpha checking in... over.
>> Anonymous
>>420549
The rapture is in the Bible, albeit interpreted differently be some, but I don't think it refers to the even by that name, which really isn't as important as the event itself anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>420549
>>420560

Well, it's Revelation, and it's as open to wild interpretation as Nostradamus' writings. Some scholars believe the tribulation has already happened and that Nero was the Antichrist and it's all come and gone. So yeah, it's in the bible in the same way dinosaurs are in the bible.
>> Anonymous
>>420531

Well if you're going to talk about big displays of brutality and power in order to keep us heathens in line and behaving ourselves, clearly we're way fucking overdue considering current events.... but that's God for you.
>> Anonymous
>>420549

There's lots of other shit also NOT found in the bible. A lot of people (including liberal Christians) can convincingly argue that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality really condemned, unless you inlcude an out of context Old Testament verse where it's sandwiched between "don't wear polyester" and "don't eat shellfish."

And so on and so forth.
>> Anonymous
>>420575
there's also all the missing gospels... Thomas for example...
>> Anonymous
went to catholic high school for part of my highschool career - we had a "religion" class taught by a priest - it turned out to really be interesting as he taught it from a more "historical" perspective - who were the kings at the time, what they did, who beat down whoto build their empire etc etc. he basically said that ya just can't take each and every passage at face value... he went thru and kind broke out which parts were likely to be accurate historical events and which were obviously just parables meant to teach morals and which parts conflicted with other parts...
anyway, my mom was upset because the catholic school ended up re-enforcing my natural skepticism about the bible's stories and religion in general... doh!
guess she was hoping I'd just fall in line and stop questioning things... ooops.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Don't fag this thread up plz.

Moar pics!
>> Anonymous
>>421153
It's been fagged. Get over it.