[quote name='NTC']</p> you guys are the ones attacking me because you dont like what Ihaveto say.</p> [/QUOTE]</p> [quote name='NTC'] but that doesnt change the fact you're an idiot. [/QUOTE]</p> [quote name='NTC'] Ithinkanyonewhoisreligiousisanidiot [/quote]</p> [quote name='NTC'] Ijustthinkthey'reidiotsforbelieveingit. [/quote]</p> You're not helping yourself here</p> </p>
You're willing to tell me I cant prove God doesnt exist, yet when it comes to any other myth or fable, you're so adament they dont exist. My point is, you cant prove those things dont exist either, you're calling me out for ripping on religion, and saying people are idiots for believing that myth, then you're coming out and saying the exact same thing in relation to other myths and legendspeoplemaybelieve.Of course I dont really believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
[quote name='GMJigga'] [quote name='NTC']</p> you guys are the ones attacking me because you dont like what Ihaveto say.</p> [/QUOTE]</p> [quote name='NTC'] but that doesnt change the fact you're an idiot. [/QUOTE]</p> [quote name='NTC'] Ithinkanyonewhoisreligiousisanidiot [/quote]</p> [quote name='NTC'] Ijustthinkthey'reidiotsforbelieveingit. [/quote]</p> You're not helping yourself here</p> </p>[/QUOTE] Whatsyourpoint? </p>
[quote name='NTC'] lol, the exact response I was hoping for. Do you have any proof Santa ClausortheEaster dont exist? Well do you? No you dont, so how do you know for sure? Imeanyouobviouslybelieveinthemyththatisgod,youbelievethatstory,whydontyoubuytheSanta/EasterBunnymyths?Therearenowaytoprovetheydontexist,sowhatsstoppingyou? If you can't prove somthing, then there is a 99.9% chance it doesnt exist. I just find it amusing how this applies to everything in the world except on the subject of 'god'. [/QUOTE]</p> What you conveniently emitted is the materialness vs abstracness. The problem here, as aforementioned, is that you are talking about an abstract concept (God) versus material concepts (Easter Bunny, Santa).</p> In regards to Santa:</p> No species of reindeer can fly. There are approximately 2 billion children in the world (people under the age of 18). Approximately 15% of the world celebrates Christmas. That's 378 million. The census approximates 3.5 children per household, which gives 91.8 million houses (assume 1 out of every 3 children is a good child). Due to time zone switches and maximization of timing, Santa can have 31 hours of Christmas to work with. This means he'd need to visit 822.6 houses per second. This means that for each visit he has 1/1000th of a second to park his sleigh, drop down the chimney, fill stockings, leave presents under the tree, eat snacks, drink milk, go back up the chimney, get back in the sleigh and go to the next house. If we say that the stops are evenly distrubuted around the world (which isn't true, but we will assume, as the final number should be close enough), that's about .78 miles between households for a total trip of 75.5 million miles. So 75.5 million miles in 31 hours. The sleigh would have to be moving at the rate of 650 miles per second (2,340,000 mph), or 3,000 times the speed of sound to put it into perspective. A reindeer can run 15 mph, tops. The fastest manmade vehicle, the Helios 2, moves at approximately 150,000 mph. If each child averages a 2 pound present, that would be 321,000 tons of cargo on the sleigh. Reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds, while on land. If we grant that these 'flying reindeer' can pull 10 times the normal amount of a reindeer, we'd still need 214,000 'flying reindeer' to pull the sleigh. That would make the weight of all things combined at about 353,000 tons. If 353,000 tons are traveling at 2,340,000 mph, the reindeer and sleigh would burn up in the atmosphere, due to air resistance. The leading reindeer would absorb 14,300,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, per second, each. If this happened, they would instantaneously burst into flames, setting off a chain reaction of flaming reindeer, creating massive sonic booms in the process. The reindeer would all be vaporized within .00426 thousandths of a second. Santa Claus would be subject to experience centrifugal forces about 17,500.06 times more than gravity. If we say Santa is 250 pounds, he'd be pinned to the back of his sleigh by a force approximately equal to 4,315,015 pounds.</p> And this is how Santa doesn't exist.</p> </p> Prove to me that the Easter Bunny or Santa exist. I guess there's a 99.9% chance it doesn't exist.</p> [quote name='NTC'] lol, I dont care about being proven wrong, I'm not biased, I'll happilly admit when I'm wrong, I wont on this matter because I know I'm not wrong. You can't prove I dont have a million dollars, just because it doesnt show up on my bank statement doesnt mean I dont have it stashed somewhere else. This is where your argument is flawed, because according to the logic of the existance of God, nothing can be proven ever, even ifsomthing we percieve as proven, who's to say thats infact correct? [/Quote]</p> How do you know you're not wrong? Because you think so? This million dollars argument makes no sense, you can't just believe you can have something material and that makes it right. If you have one million dollars stashed somewhere, you have one million dollars. If you don't, but you believe it, you STILL don't.</p> [quote name='NTC'] Lets see your argument, you're debating for the existance of somthingthereisnoproofof,whileI'mdebatingforthenon-existanceofthesamethingonthebasisthereisnoproofofit.Myargumentexactlyis,</p> thereisnoevidencesupportingtheexistanceofGod,usingthis"wellyoucantnotprovethereisntagod"isacheapcopout,Icantprovegoddoesntexistbecause</p> thereisnothingtobeabletoprovehisexistance!I'vegotabetterchanceoffuckingJessicaAlbathanyoudotryingtoprovetomeGodisreal.</p> [/Quote]</p> If you cannot prove whether something exists or doesn't exist, how does that get interpreted to it doesn't exist? You are using the same cop out. I'm not trying to prove to you God is real, because you can't. But you cannot prove to me, in the same manner, that God doesn't exist. You just can't do it.</p> [quote name='NTC'] This is the number 1 reason why religion is a farce, everyone is believing and thinking a different thing from one another, God supposedly created the universe, so who is right? Who's opinion is correct? No ones is, God is essentially nothing anything. [/Quote]</p> How do you know no one's opinion is correct? I thought we can't know? You seem to know that your opinion is correct, though.</p> [quote name='NTC'] he1 [hee; unstressed ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation pronoun, nominative he, possessive his, objective him; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun, plural hes; adjective –pronoun 1. the male person or animal being discussed or last mentioned; that male. 2. anyone (without reference to sex); that person: He who hesitates is lost. –noun 3. any male person or animal; a man: hes and shes. –adjective 4. male (usually used in combination): a he-goat. [Origin: bef. 900; ME, OE hé (masc. nom. sing.); c. D hij, OS hé, OHG her he; see his, him, she, her, it1] —Usage note Traditionally, the masculine singular pronouns he1, his, and him have been used generically to refer to indefinite pronouns like anyone, everyone, and someone (Everyone who agrees should raise his right hand) and to singular nouns that can be applied to either sex (painter, parent, person, teacher, writer, etc.): Every writer knows that his first book is not likely to be a bestseller. This generic use is often criticized as sexist, although many speakers and writers continue the practice. Those who object to the generic use of he have developed various ways of avoiding it. One is to use he/she or she/he (or he or she or she or he) or the appropriate case forms of these pairs: Everyone who agrees should raise his or her (or her or his or his/her or her/his) right hand. Forms blending the feminine and masculine pronouns, as s/he, have not been widely adopted, probably because of confusion over how to say them. Another solution is to change the antecedent pronoun or noun from singular to plural so that the plural pronouns they, their, and them can be used: All who agree should raise their right hands. All writers know that their first books are not likely to be bestsellers. See also they. If god isnt a man, dont refer to it as a 'he'.</p> [/Quote]</p> This doesn't even apply at all, because God is not referred to as the pronoun he, but as the title of He. It's not a pronoun, but a title.</p> [quote name='NTC'] If you want to percieve it that way, then thats your problem. Ok, so you would call me an idiot for my beliefs? Double standards much? Again, the Easter Bunny cant be proven that it doesnt exist. Where is the concrete evidence the Easter Bunny doesnt exist?</p> [/Quote]</p> So If I believe that, it's my problem? That's just silly.</p> I'm not calling you an idiot for your beliefs. I'm calling you an idiot for your lack of intellect, which is permeating throughout this thread.</p> <div class="AnswersHeader">[quote name='NTC'] <table border="0" class="donotmoveme" style="width: 480px; float: left;" id="Balloontable2"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <div id="answertipClose" style="display: none;"></div> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <div style="width: 470px; height: 22px; float: left;"></div> </div> lol, I need to relax? I was offering my opinion, you guys are the ones attacking me because you dont like what Ihaveto say. I never told people they couldnt believe in what they want, show me where I said that?I'mofferingmyviews,thatsall.Ifyoudontlikethem,thendontreadwhatIhavetosay.</p> [/QUOTE]</p> </p> Last time I checked, you were the one calling others idiots, and attacking people who are religious, or believe in religion. Be tolerant of others beliefs and there wouldn't be a problem. It's a lot better than saying, 'OMG YOU BELEEVE IN GOD, YOUR AN IDIOT".</p>
Whatever, after these last couple of posts its clear you guys have double standards when it comes to this issue.</p> Ineverattackedanyone,Istatedmyopinionthatpeoplewhobelieveinreligionareidiots,youweretheoneswhochosetoreacttothat,whichisfine,butdonttellmeI'mattackingpeoplewhenInevercalledanyoneoutspecifically.IWASOFFERINGMYOPINIONTOWARDSRELIGION.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NTC)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Whatsyourpoint? </p> </div></p> That you're the one attacking posters views, and are contradicting yourself</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NTC)</div><div class='quotemain'>Of course I dont really believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.</div></p> So then why are you bringing up false examples to support your argument? Basing your claims on premises you admit yourself to be false doesn't help you at all.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NTC)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Whatever, after these last couple of posts its clear you guys have double standards when it comes to this issue.</p> Ineverattackedanyone,Istatedmyopinionthatpeoplewhobelieveinreligionareidiots,youweretheoneswhochosetoreacttothat,whichisfine,butdonttellmeI'mattackingpeoplewhenInevercalledanyoneoutspecifically.IWASOFFERINGMYOPINIONTOWARDSRELIGION.</p> </div></p> </p> Uh, calling people idiots is attacking them. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you...</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'> Uh, calling people idiots is attacking them. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you...</p></div> "KidChocolate,youaresuchanidiotforbelievingreligion"PleasepointoutwhereinanyofmypostsIsaidthis, please. That is an attack.GMJiggapostedmycommentsabove,theyweredirectedatnooneinparticualar,only offering my opinion towards thosewhobelieveinreligion.Youchosetotakeoffencetothem,thatsyourproblem. </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NTC)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Uh, calling people idiots is attacking them. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you...</p> </div></p> "KidChocolate,youaresuchanidiotforbelievingreligion" PleasepointoutwhereinanyofmypostsIsaidthis, please. That is an attack. GMJiggapostedmycommentsabove,theyweredirectedatnooneinparticualar,only offering my opinion towards thosewhobelieveinreligion.Youchosetotakeoffencetothem,thatsyourproblem.</p> </div></p> I never said you attacked me in particular. That is an attack. As is saying if you believe in religion you are an idiot, as you are indirectly calling people idiots.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NTC)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> GMJiggapostedmycommentsabove,theyweredirectedatnooneinparticualar,only offering my opinion towards thosewhobelieveinreligion.Youchosetotakeoffencetothem,thatsyourproblem.</p> </div></p> Offering your opinion? Haha c'mon you explicitly called 'people' idiots many times.</p> Now sure, you didn't call out anyone in general. You merely said that any people who believe this are idiots. Well, that would be some of the posters here. Don't request that people stop attacking you, when you're attacking other people indirectly (and obviously).</p> </p>
I never told people to stop attacking me, I said you are the ones attacking me,whichyouare, I never attacked anyone here, all I said was people who believe in religion are idiots, you chose to take offense to that. My intentions wernt to attack people like you are percieving it.
Not at all. I'm attacking contradictions in your own argument; and advising you to watch out for making the same mistakes in the future. I'm an athiest myself actually, as I've said in my earlier posts.</p> I also can't respect someone who waivers so much on their own word; especially hiding behind previously mentioned statements by using spin. So the religious people chose to take offense to that? As if you realisticaly expected religious people to not take offense to that?</p> If so, why did you even use such a demeaning word in the first place?</p> You see my man, I am all for competative banter. Lets just tighten it up a bit to make it more productive for everyone.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> "Please do not offer my God a peanut!" [/simpsons]</p> </div></p> Haha i love that line</p> </p>
Question: Do you believe there was a beginning to the universe? Or has it been here forever?</p> I'm taking an honors theology course this year, and I hope I can argue for the existence of God as best I can based on my studies so far this year.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (M Two One)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> This thread is fucking hilarious.</p> </div></p> </p> Agreed, NTC you are not being attacked, you attacked everyone that is religious by calling them idiots. Naturally some people took offense and challenged your point. I'm agnostic and don't consider myself religious at all but I don't understand how you cannot agree with what they are saying. You cannot prove God does not exist and you cannot prove that He does. If you can truly prove he doesn't exist like you say then you should be given an award of some sort. But you have yet to support your claim, all you have done is use outside comparisons that aren't alike and support the others' views moreso. I honestly don't see how you can continue to back up what you said after offering no evidence supporting it.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> In regards to Santa:</p> No species of reindeer can fly. There are approximately 2 billion children in the world (people under the age of 18). Approximately 15% of the world celebrates Christmas. That's 378 million. The census approximates 3.5 children per household, which gives 91.8 million houses (assume 1 out of every 3 children is a good child). Due to time zone switches and maximization of timing, Santa can have 31 hours of Christmas to work with. This means he'd need to visit 822.6 houses per second. This means that for each visit he has 1/1000th of a second to park his sleigh, drop down the chimney, fill stockings, leave presents under the tree, eat snacks, drink milk, go back up the chimney, get back in the sleigh and go to the next house. If we say that the stops are evenly distrubuted around the world (which isn't true, but we will assume, as the final number should be close enough), that's about .78 miles between households for a total trip of 75.5 million miles. So 75.5 million miles in 31 hours. The sleigh would have to be moving at the rate of 650 miles per second (2,340,000 mph), or 3,000 times the speed of sound to put it into perspective. A reindeer can run 15 mph, tops. The fastest manmade vehicle, the Helios 2, moves at approximately 150,000 mph. If each child averages a 2 pound present, that would be 321,000 tons of cargo on the sleigh. Reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds, while on land. If we grant that these 'flying reindeer' can pull 10 times the normal amount of a reindeer, we'd still need 214,000 'flying reindeer' to pull the sleigh. That would make the weight of all things combined at about 353,000 tons. If 353,000 tons are traveling at 2,340,000 mph, the reindeer and sleigh would burn up in the atmosphere, due to air resistance. The leading reindeer would absorb 14,300,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, per second, each. If this happened, they would instantaneously burst into flames, setting off a chain reaction of flaming reindeer, creating massive sonic booms in the process. The reindeer would all be vaporized within .00426 thousandths of a second. Santa Claus would be subject to experience centrifugal forces about 17,500.06 times more than gravity. If we say Santa is 250 pounds, he'd be pinned to the back of his sleigh by a force approximately equal to 4,315,015 pounds.</p> And this is how Santa doesn't exist.</div></p> </p> That is a classic hilarious post. I'd put the quote in my sig, but it would take up too much space.</p>
