Reilly

it's weird seeing 07 battles..

#1

fun

How's it going.

tenacious pride

the activity on this forum says it all.

Oh I think you have your own mind, it's just been manipulated through the prospects of social cohesion and it's benefits. I'm sure it calms a lot of your fears and anxieties, such as death, the afterlife, etc. You can have faith in things other than God you know - the universe with the potentiality for nearly anything and the gift of consciousness are much more liberating of concepts than a rigid set of rules and detest for your own flesh.

But i don't get defensive about it tbh, i really don't care. People have their own views in their life and i respect how they should spend their life. There is a very very crazy way i look at life which i'm too stubborn to share with the rest. Only God can judge me. I don't care how many times you can tell me there is no God, because there's no actual proof that God does not exist. There is no way, no way whatsoever that science will have actual proof how the universe was created, therefore Religion will stand strong. In addition, there will always be Religion vs Science debates, because there's 1 thing that science cannot and will never proof of how the universe began. So until Jesus or Mohammed(peace be upon him) show up on earth, Religion vs Science will forever exist in this world. Till the end, death, we will finally see ourselves. I'll give you a little lesson in logic: 1) You are asking us to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. What you expect of us is completely impossible, the sentence itself has no meaning that corresponds with reality. We can not prove that God does not exist, it is simply impossible because... 2) You are making a positive claim. You are the one that is claiming the existence of something, therefore you are logically obligated to prove that claim. A negative claim would be saying God does not exist, but that does not need to be proved, that is assumed. We don't simply assume anything that could possibly exist as a being does so in actuality; for example, do you believe there are millions of tiny little men walking around your room at night and ******** on your floor? I wouldn't expect you to disprove that either. 3) You're way off topic. The actual question is are they compatible. yes i know i went off topic. i went to history not science. Let's start with science. Science is ******* great, it has helped us live longer, cure cancer and soo many other good shitt.but it has also it has ****** us up as well(mass destruction, weapons,missile,nuclear bombs) When you start to read a book, you start from page 1 right? We'll assume when the universe began is Page 1 of a book, and it's blank.. ( there is no proof how universe began <-- can we leave that at here) I agree that we don't know where the universe began. Still, we can speculate and form theories based on the evidence we provided. This is why I don't believe the two are compatible; one is rigid, fixed and outdated while the other is constantly changing as new evidence presents itself.

But i don't get defensive about it tbh, i really don't care. People have their own views in their life and i respect how they should spend their life. There is a very very crazy way i look at life which i'm too stubborn to share with the rest. Only God can judge me. I don't care how many times you can tell me there is no God, because there's no actual proof that God does not exist. There is no way, no way whatsoever that science will have actual proof how the universe was created, therefore Religion will stand strong. In addition, there will always be Religion vs Science debates, because there's 1 thing that science cannot and will never proof of how the universe began. So until Jesus or Mohammed(peace be upon him) show up on earth, Religion vs Science will forever exist in this world. Till the end, death, we will finally see ourselves. I'll give you a little lesson in logic: 1) You are asking us to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. What you expect of us is completely impossible, the sentence itself has no meaning that corresponds with reality. We can not prove that God does not exist, it is simply impossible because... 2) You are making a positive claim. You are the one that is claiming the existence of something, therefore you are logically obligated to prove that claim. A negative claim would be saying God does not exist, but that does not need to be proved, that is assumed. We don't simply assume anything that could possibly exist as a being does so in actuality; for example, do you believe there are millions of tiny little men walking around your room at night and ******** on your floor? I wouldn't expect you to disprove that either. 3) You're way off topic. The actual question is are they compatible.

1) You acknowledging that scientific theories are constantly changing in order to accommodate new knowledge is a prime example of how science has no invested interest in maintaining any form of hierarchical structure. The same cannot be said for religion - Religion is structured in a rigid, unchanging way in order to maintain a institution of inequality. 2) No, I do not believe Moses parted the Red Sea. Yes, I do believe in Genghis Khang. This is because there is hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence indicating the mass genocide of a population did happen. This includes the remains of thousands of individuals, documented cases of the massacres that have taken place - Including documented first hand accounts. In actuality this didn't occur that long ago; less than a thousand years. If you want to adopt a Greek-skeptic-position then keep in mind it also applies to your own, infallible, bible. Now, I would like to counter your question - What evidence do you have that suggests the red-sea was by Moses? 3) Which do I believe is more believable as a theory? Well, in the past 100 years there have been a plethora of mass genocides happening. Of course the most notable being Hitler. It just so happens I've never heard of a man having the ability to part massive bodies of water at will, however.. 4) Copying and pasting physics articles that are highly debated amongst the physics community does not prove anything. I never once claimed to know the origins of this universe, nor how we came to be. That is the difference between science and religion - Religion claims to know, science is humble enough to admit we do not know everything. We're searching for the answers. Oh mate, you still haven't answered my question. Did Genghis Khan existed? How can you possibly tell me he existed when there is no visual proof of him. Documented pieces? The Bible/Qu'ran is a legitimate document proof. Do you know why you think Genghis Khan existed? It's because you BELIEVE he existed, but you have fcck visual proof he ever existed. Do you know now? That's how religion is. We BELIEVE there is a God. Just like how you believe there was a man name Genghis Khan because some dude with a Ph.D wrote a History book, like fcck was he there? Did he see genghis Khan? And no, those bodies aren't proof. It's been thousands years ago since Genghis Khan, they could be anyobdy living from all that time that due of natural causes. They had no vaccination back then did they? And back the life was real short. Avrg life span was around 40s? and document names? I'll start now.. Chin Chan Chou repeat x1000 Chi Yang Ming repeat x1000.. No fcking visual proof whatsoever of these thousands of man who died from the sword of Genghis Khan. Just names, and some bones that could of been ANYBODY who wasn't even killed from Genghis Khan. You're a sheep. From school/college/work, your whole life. That's all we will ever be. Sheep. Because we will never ever get out there and learn this **** ourselves instead we search up shlt that we don't even know if it existed, we just believe it did, hope that it did and it wasn't all a lie. The past will always be just a belief, if we have no visual proof of it. it's fcking crazy how i observe the world from smoking too much GANJA. shrooms mollies, all that shitt... Yes he existed you god damn pleb. If you need visual sense-data experience for everything deemed as true knowledge then how can you possibly believe that God exists? It seems as though your refutations aren't coherent with your actual belief system. Being a radical epistemological skeptic and having an impossibly high standard of justification to reach is self-defeating. If we can't know anything, then why bother trying? There is plenty of evidence indicating the existence of Genghis Khang, you're just too attached to your own beliefs to acknowledge that. No matter what evidence I present you have a firm psychological attachment to your religion. Pretty ironic calling me the sheep lol. And are you kidding me? I just ripped a bowl as I was writing this kid. You can't be much older than 17 I'm guessing.

1) You acknowledging that scientific theories are constantly changing in order to accommodate new knowledge is a prime example of how science has no invested interest in maintaining any form of hierarchical structure. The same cannot be said for religion - Religion is structured in a rigid, unchanging way in order to maintain a institution of inequality. 2) No, I do not believe Moses parted the Red Sea. Yes, I do believe in Genghis Khang. This is because there is hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence indicating the mass genocide of a population did happen. This includes the remains of thousands of individuals, documented cases of the massacres that have taken place - Including documented first hand accounts. In actuality this didn't occur that long ago; less than a thousand years. If you want to adopt a Greek-skeptic-position then keep in mind it also applies to your own, infallible, bible. Now, I would like to counter your question - What evidence do you have that suggests the red-sea was parted by Moses? 3) Which do I believe is more credible and justifiable as a theory? Well, in the past 100 years there have been a plethora of mass genocides happening. Of course the most notable being Hitler. It just so happens I've never heard of a man having the ability to part massive bodies of water at will, however.. 4) Copying and pasting physics articles that are highly debated amongst the physics community does not prove anything. I never once claimed to know the origins of this universe, nor how we came to be. That is the difference between science and religion - Religion claims to know, science is humble enough to admit we do not know everything. We're searching for the answers.

weird, id probably think tlp would win best matched If you consider a P2P 50v50 matched event criterion for the 'greatest of all time' awards. Hmm, in my opinion hundreds of 50v50s determine #1 matched over a couple of 100v100 fullouts :P Ok. Now let's keep in mind that you completely disregarded my actual reason for believing Tlp shouldn't be #1 in anything; the fact that they never successfully got into the F2P scene. Let's also keep in mind that this topic takes into consideration the historical background of clanning because of the 'all-time' clause. I don't deny they're a good clan, but taking into account their over-all position through out the years I wouldn't consider the them the #1 matched clan of all time, nor a viable threat in F2P. dont know how being awful at f2p reflects in the p2p matched rating :s but okay I dont really feel like arguing more. I know what you mean and I guess I agree. When I say of all-time I'm not really taking into consideration matched preps and things like that however, but I feel ya.

Ya, I'm expecting most of the responses to be along those lines lol, I don't mind though. Hopefully at least one intelligent theist will challenge my claims.

weird, id probably think tlp would win best matched If you consider a P2P 50v50 matched event criterion for the 'greatest of all time' awards. Hmm, in my opinion hundreds of 50v50s determine #1 matched over a couple of 100v100 fullouts :P Ok. Now let's keep in mind that you completely disregarded my actual reason for believing Tlp shouldn't be #1 in anything; the fact that they never successfully got into the F2P scene. Let's also keep in mind that this topic takes into consideration the historical background of clanning because of the 'all-time' clause. I don't deny they're a good clan, but taking into account their over-all position through out the years I wouldn't consider the them the #1 matched clan of all time, nor a viable threat in F2P.

weird, id probably think tlp would win best matched If you consider a P2P 50v50 matched event criterion for the 'greatest of all time' awards.