Poll

Which is a more reliable source?

The Bible
35 (18.3%)
Science
140 (73.3%)
Bruce Campbell
16 (8.4%)

Total Members Voted: 191

Author Topic: More reliable source?  (Read 40265 times)

We don't even know if Jesus existed. Kind of important for a religion.
Actually they're pretty sure someone with that name did exist there at that time.


From the internet? Ha! You are pretty hilarious. Internet information can almost never be trusted, because anyone from anywhere could be saying that. Anyways, if you were an "intelligent person", you would understand that evolution is pretty much impossible.
why do you think there's a new flu vaccine. Because the seasonal flu EVOLVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!

Actually they're pretty sure someone with that name did exist there at that time.
I'm pretty sure some one in that time period had the name Julius too, there's my proof that he exists

You do realize the Papacy censored much of the early books and then assembled the Bible we know today right?

We may never know the full picture of the religion, it's an interesting thought.
And that's a point I made so many times and has been ignored so many times. MAN not God wrote the bible. The bible is man's interpretation of the word of God. Man is flawed and is biased. So of course there will be a lot of things that are open to discussion and interpretation. Aside from that, you also have crappy translations, changes to the content due to the advancement of time and technology. Not to mention the fact that all of this was assembled and written 200+ years after everything happened, so spoken legends have the tendency to be exaggerated.

Oh and no, I don't watch too much TV, so my pop culture references will be dated somewhat.

I'm pretty sure some one in that time period had the name Julius too, there's my proof that he exists
Pretty sure you're grasping at straws to disprove that too, now you're just as bad as the fundies.

It was on a National Geographic about the Gospel of Mary, I was bored and ended up watching the whole thing.

Actually they're pretty sure someone with that name did exist there at that time.

um, the only link they have between Jesus' supposed death and the gospels is some friend who believed Jesus existed in a spiritual realm.

Don't you just love it when people say things about evolution without taking a biology class first? It's just so cute.

Pretty sure you're grasping at straws to disprove that too, now you're just as bad as the fundies.

It was on a National Geographic about the Gospel of Mary, I was bored and ended up watching the whole thing.
but what you said was just easily disproved. Don't make such statements

Don't you just love it when people say things about evolution without taking a biology class first? It's just so cute.
who are you referencing? me or Molasses, cause we talked about that very subject in my AP Bio class today

um, the only link they have between Jesus' supposed death and the gospels is some friend who believed Jesus existed in a spiritual realm.
Yeah now you're just weak trolling, no thanks.

but what you said was just easily disproved. Don't make such statements
No you're forgetting you have nothing to back up conjecture too.



Again, not trying to be a richard.

Actually they're pretty sure someone with that name did exist there at that time.

Allot of archeologists have been on a sort of witch hunt to unearth whatever they can that's remotely connected to the bible. They found a few nifty things but you can hear the religious dissenting voices. The funny thing is a good portion of the scientists looking into this are chistrian themselves and they don't seem to have a problem with solving the bible's tale but I guess there are those that like their mysterious book of secrets to remain mysterious.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2009, 11:20:07 PM by Muffinmix »

No you're forgetting you have nothing to back up conjecture too.
neither do you, except, maybe, that National Geographic. I might have seen it some where. There, I proved it

Yeah now you're just weak trolling, no thanks.

No, it's true. Only one man mentioned Jesus in the 30-50 years after his death. And he didn't even mention the same things as the gospels.


From the internet? Ha! You are pretty hilarious. Internet information can almost never be trusted, because anyone from anywhere could be saying that. Anyways, if you were an "intelligent person", you would understand that evolution is pretty much impossible.

Oh my loving god, you're an idiot. Internet information can generally be trusted, contrary to what your christian republican mother told you, because people genuinely have no reason to pay money as well as upkeep a website just to fool you.

I am an intelligent person, and I can explain right here and now why evolution is not only possible, it's logical and makes perfect sense. I can type the basic theory of evolution out for you right here and now and you can critique it, if you'd like.

Poor baby. A lot of people will piss you off in your life. Deal with it.

Your belief is based on a lack of information so you truly do not understand both sides of the story. Inv3rted does. Intelligence comes from researching tings, even those things you don't like in order to come up with a valid point to your argument. My Christian knowledge comes from the source, so I know what I talk about. You do not. Plain and simple. I wasn't being mean or cruel to you, you just don't have a right to dismiss and bash what you do not know anything about. A lot of things you will find on the internet is fueled with propaganda and hearsay. And I can only gather that the only sites you would look up is that of Atheists, who themselves have been guilty of numerous over exaggerations and fault finding of Christianity just to make a weak point and push what they think onto other people. There have been many scientific searches into the history of the bible and it's stories and found a few examples that were true and real. If you do proper research, you'll find this and can truly make a valid argument for your case.

tl;dr version. Go do some research and not just on Atheist sites. Understand both sides and you can make a valid argument. So my statement still stands. Do not argue about things that you never cared to inform yourself about.

Oh, I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand that when people piss you off you tell them that they're wrong when they are. I do deal with it, but not by sucking it up and saying "oh well", nothing ever gets done that way.

I do, in fact, understand both sides of the story. I have a reasonable understanding of the bible, and the way that the christian religion and others work. I think we've gone over this before; you're not superior in any way in this setting. You're claiming that intelligence comes from researching things when you're supporting a religion that has not changed it's views for over 2,000 years, even with major advances. The christian religion is based on essentially no fact, and therefore research, and by your logic you are asserting that your own beliefs are unintelligent. Not to mention even that on the surface, you're wrong. I do look up things before I make a reply to this topic that's fact. I try to avoid sites that are biased towards an athiest point of view, because I already have that bias. In fact; I tend to research subjects like this on christian inclined sites! This debate is also fueled mostly by opinion, there's no definitive proof of either side. My opinion is that religion is wrong, and I have evidence to support this belief, as I'm sure you have for yours. You're telling me most of the information on the internet is fueled by propaganda and hearsay; that's exactly what your faith is! I try to make sure I'm taking accurate information from legitimate sites, if I get something wrong, please correct me, instead of bashing me and my accuracy. I make reasonable points sometimes, and I can assure you that they have sufficient fact backing them, so please respond to the points I make instead of by bashing me.

Rughugger, you appear to be bashing me simply because you have no reasonable response to what I say. Instead of making weak arguments like, "you're bad at doing research", or, "your sources are wrong", you could, perhaps, tell me the inaccuracies and respond to the point in a polite and informed manner. What I've gathered is that you no longer have anything to say against what I'm saying, except to flame me. How about YOU get out, and come back when you learn how to stay polite in a debate.