Rage thread

[Gir]

(10-18-2013, 09:34 AM)DatKid20 Wrote: Hitler was not Christian. Are you dumb or something? To be a Christian you have to believe in Jesus and Hitler didn't. Hitler created his own religion.

I am sure "Hitler" was a Christian... Jesus is a fictional character thus no argument there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-E9EmeFXjk

[yodenny]

what is the point of this thread? it says rage thread yet i see people talking about religion? so i guess atheist are venting there anger against the beliefs of other people? hmm interesting so im not really the type of guy to rage but i will see what i can do

i hate it when people are rude ie; have no respect for there fellow human beings
hate when people have no manners ie; being dirty while other people are eating
dislike when people shame themselves ie; being public nude eating shit ect.
am i rage enough yet O.o ? lets continue
i hate when people assume something while not actually looking up the facts
well im sure there is more but ill do it some other time maybe

[Link_to_the_past]

Atheism won't make you a better person, you either are a good person or not, atheism won't have an effect on it. What it does have an effect though is that with less strings attached an atheist might enjoy certain aspects of life better. Communists are atheists, and see the results... I am not convinced that an atheist is a better person, enjoying life better though might make a man build up less rage inside him and behave better. It won't change his "core" though. An ass@@# will still be an as##$$ and someone who cares about others will still care regardless of his religion beliefs or lack of them.

[Qaazavaca Qaanic]

Uh, if you are willing to consider religion a valid theory, despite the complete absence of evidence other than the bible, what about computer simulations? Created last Thursday? An invisible teapot in the asteroid belt? All are equally unscientific and unlikely, and invalid when it comes to scientific research.

Current scientific theory, on the other hand, does have provable and proven predictions, and supporting evidence. Unlike religion...
And maybe atheism doesn't make you a better person, but truth does not exist solely to make us better people. Truth is blind to the interpretations and thoughts of people exposed to it (or not). There's nothing special about us that means that everything good for us is "true by order of the pope/religiousLeader/evilDictator".

[yodenny]

part 1.1 xO
hate when a girl talks about her ex while still with you straight leave that hoe
dislike when you text somebody and they never text back (no manners)
hate it when an OP weapon or mod comes out on warframe and people cry on the forums getting it nerfed (WTF)
part 1.2 coming whenever

[DatKid20]

(10-18-2013, 09:42 AM)Gir Wrote:

(10-18-2013, 09:34 AM)DatKid20 Wrote: Hitler was not Christian. Are you dumb or something? To be a Christian you have to believe in Jesus and Hitler didn't. Hitler created his own religion.

I am sure "Hitler" was a Christian... Jesus is a fictional character thus no argument there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-E9EmeFXjk

No he wasn't. What does that last statement have to do with anything other than you being very hateful towards Christians when they most likely haven't done anything to you?

Wikipedia Wrote:It is generally believed by historians that Hitler's post war and long term goal was the eradication of Christianity in Germany.

---

(10-18-2013, 10:32 AM)jimbo1qaz Wrote: Uh, if you are willing to consider religion a valid theory, despite the complete absence of evidence other than the bible, what about computer simulations? Created last Thursday? An invisible teapot in the asteroid belt? All are equally unscientific and unlikely, and invalid when it comes to scientific research.

Current scientific theory, on the other hand, does have provable and proven predictions, and supporting evidence. Unlike religion...
And maybe atheism doesn't make you a better person, but truth does not exist solely to make us better people. Truth is blind to the interpretations and thoughts of people exposed to it (or not). There's nothing special about us that means that everything good for us is "true by order of the pope/religiousLeader/evilDictator".

A invisible teapot can be found. Computer simulations aren't a theory at all. Those two really don't make sense even though the first one make more sense than the thing in your sig. You can't repeatedly test Evolution and find the same results which makes Evolution unscientific and based on how much you believe not how much scientific sense it makes. That makes Evolution a religion and makes you want you don't want to be, someone who has a religion. :legasp

If you say you can test Evolution go ahead and make a youtube video in which you test the theory of Evolution and show that you get the same results every time. I'll be waiting.

[Qaazavaca Qaanic]

You seem to misunderstand the definition of science. So by your standards, all theories on life are unscientific. Yet we have scientific evidence, scientific deduction, etc. Using evidence, we can make inferences about the past. And we have lots of evidence, so that we can confidently make predictions about the past. If we are limited to what we can observe directly, there would be no such thing as science.

<insult>I'm secretly a creationist. You're too dumb to have possibly been produced by natural selection.</insult>

We have overwhelming evidence that evolution is true. It's not a religion, religion is (all current ones) unsupported by evidence. Science is not a religion. And yes, there are multiple types of evidence converging on the same basic tree. Similar body parts, DNA, geographical distribution... Any god would have to be lying to us.

And about the invisible teapot being found... It's possible. But can a god be found? NO! Is there any possible explanation for its existence? NO! Which means it's even less scientific than the teapot. Can we prove it? Sorta kinda... And yet so far there is no valid evidence at all, no matter how hard people try.

[NaturalViolence]

Sigh.....I really tried not to get sucked into this one. But this bullshit has reached critical levels. You guys wrote 4 pages in 1 day and I'm not sure I want to go back and comment on all of that.

I'll try to make this short and simple for now. So I'll just respond to the last two posts for now.

DatKid20 Wrote:You can't repeatedly test Evolution and find the same results

You really should have done a google search before making such a ridiculous claim.

Yes you can. Easily. As a former biology major I've done it many times. My father is a microbiologist. When he was writing his thesis in graduate school the bacteria species he was working with evolved a new protein while he was working on it. He lost 6 months of work because of evolution. Stick any simple microscopic organism in an isolated environment for long enough and it will evolve. Especially if you introduce drastic changes to the environment. Hell just ask your doctor why you need flu vaccination every year. It's because the virus constantly evolves into new strains. Many diseases caused by bacteria and viruses require constantly changing vaccines to keep up with them. Medical doctors are trained professionals in the medical field and therefore are required to understand a significant amount of biology. They wouldn't be able to treat you properly without their knowledge of evolution. Our vaccines just wouldn't work correctly if it were wrong. There is so much technology out there particularly in the medical field that wouldn't exist without our understanding of evolution. Evolution is the single most important theory in all of biology. It is the fundamental basic building block from which all other theories in the field stem from. You cannot understand biology without it. None of the other theories make any sense at all without it.

A larger more complex organism with a longer lifespan will take longer to mutate but it will. We've observed evolution on a macroscopic scale many times as well. Although it's much harder to duplicate in a lab than microscopic evolution. We have never found a cell that does not mutate. If we had curing cancer would likely be fairly easy (cancer is caused by genetic mutation in case you didn't know). All cells mutate, all cells evolve. Even without environmental factors they still mutate because DNA replication sometimes produces errors. Again this has been well studied and documented. And don't give me any of that macro vs. micro evolution BS. Evolution is evolution. Macroscopic organisms are multicellular. Cells don't care if other cells are around. They don't just magically stop behaving like cells.

I mean where do all these human mutations we've observed come from if cells don't mutate? It just wouldn't make any sense. A significant number of mental and physical diseases that exist in humans are genetic diseases that can occur entirely through cellular mutation without either parent having the genes. Without evolutions we shouldn't have vestigial organs, endogenous retroviruses, atavism, the list goes on and on. We shouldn't find such a clear pattern of increasing genetic diversity with respect to time in the fossil record. We shouldn't see the geological dispersion patterns that we see. There is just so much stuff in every branch of science that would make no sense without biological evolution through natural selection. That's why scientists have accepted it for over a hundred years. The evidence just doesn't fit any other explanation. There are two main components to evolution. Genetic mutation and natural selection. Bother are observable and testable. Which is why they are listed as theories. Because they meet all of the criteria of a scientific theory and therefore belong in science. In fact evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories ever made. Stronger than gravitational theory even. This is a theory that not only has a mountain of credible evidence from one field, but from almost every major field of science. With each field testing for it their own way and all arriving at the same conclusion. Whether it be genetics, comparative anatomy, phylogeny, geology, etc. Creationism on the other hand is not a thoery. It does not meet the strict requirements of a scientific theory. If you seriously think you've got evidence that overturns the last 150 years of doctorate level biology studies please write it down and submit it. I promise you will without question win the nobel prize in biology if it turns out to be accurate.

Now I'm not going to bring religion into this. Because in a perfect world it shouldn't have anything to do with science denial. I don't even consider creationism religious since most religious people in developed countries still accept evolution as true.

I was at one point in my life considering becoming a biology teacher but decided against it once I learned about the creationism movement in America and our recent laws in some states about "teaching the controversy". I'm not going to be forced to lie through my teeth to young impressionable children. That's just wrong on some many levels. It boils my blood more than anything else on the planet to think about the teachers who legally have to do that. I feel so sorry for them. It's like forcing a chemistry teacher to teach alchemy as an alternative to real chemistry just because its part of some religious scriptures. Even though schools aren't supposed to have an official religion. How are we supposed to properly train the next generation of scientists and engineers if we're not allowed to teach them any science that doesn't agree with the scriptures of the dominant religion in this country? It's ridiculous and extremely harmful. I continue to be amazed that there are people out there that actively work to try to destroy science because they genuinely believe that it threatens their way of life and that they would be better off without it. This is the kind of shit that makes me seriously contemplate moving to Europe when I'm done with my education. If we don't fix this soon we're going to be screwed in the future.

Oh and you should probably read mein kamf before claiming hitler was not a christian. I think some of the things this "atheist" says might surprise you.

jimbo1qaz Wrote:If we are limited to what we can observe directly, there would be no such thing as science.

Not true at all. There are many forms of evidence, most of which are not observable. For example many people think that newtons theory of gravitys evidence is just "things fall down". The strongest evidence for the theory actually comes from mathematical analysis. The equations derived from the theory allow us to predict the outcome of events based on the law with perfect accuracy. This is one of the marks of a good theory. The ability to predict an outcome using mathematics. Of course not all scientific theories contain a mathematically law or component.

Jesus I typed too much. I'm going to bed now.

[AnyOldName3]

I think the amount of what you intended to say per character was a lot higher than in my post. I got distracted by demonstrating how I think modern religion should evolve as new evidence shows things to be untrue.

Also, I've seen derogatory comments about Karl Marx and Communism, and how communist states are the route of all evil. I'd like to point out that there has never been a single communist state in the world, and governments only call themselves communist so they can explain to their citizens why they are being used as slaves/make their citizens hate capitalist countries for problems that exist in equal measure in the particular psuedocommunist country. If it were possible to set up a Marxist state, then its citizens would be very happy with their government. Unfortunately, all it takes is one power hungry politician to ruin everything for everyone, and due to the fact that the only people who want to become politicians are power hungry, this has always happened within 30 minutes of a government deciding it is going to be communist. Don't knock it till you try it.

[Steel01]

Wow, interesting thread. I'd like to point a couple things out. I'll prefix this by saying I am a Christian. I'm not going to rail against anyone that doesn't agree with that and I'd ask that the same kindness be shown in return. With that, I have two questions and comments to go with them.

1. Where did the universe come from? Can that be scientifically proven? Can you reproduce the advent of matter by the scientific method? I think that no matter what side you take, you still have to have a belief, a form of religion as it's been called here, in where we came from.

2. I believe in micro-evolution. Well, that statement may not be quite right. There doesn't have to be trust or belief as that can be proven by scientific method. All cases mentioned above fall into this category. A virus changes to another virus, a horse and donkey bear a mule (still an equine), all within their kind. The Bible states this as well. Genesis says each reproduces after thier own kind. Noah took two of every kind into the ark and from those, all variations came. What cannot be proven is macroevolution. Can a fish become a cow? Can a bacteria become a man? Is there any proof of that?

I don't mean to inflame a war here. I just want people to research and think for themselves. Can everything be explained by random chance? Or does everything point to a intelligent designer? For myself, I believe all of creation points to God.

Steel01