Hell, they should have also outlawed tobacco, alcohol, drugs, hookers, and anything else that gives people temporary escape from the drudgery of the really real world. Outside of sounding like rule by the religious, it sounds like a place practically no one would want to to live.
While you're on the subject of Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, and Groucho, I was just kinda checking over the posts that were done while I was having my 'out of forum experience' and I wasn't able to find you answers to the following questions (they were probably hidden in plain sight, and I just kinda under-looked them. . .that being so, I'm sure you'll be nice enough to re-post them for me, want you?): Where Did the Universe Come From??? and How do you explain human consciousness? Thanks for waiting for my return. This is really very kind of you. I'm ready for your answers now, since I'm sure that you've had more than ample time to come up with something that will be acceptable to me.
I'll be honest and try not to swear too much but you sound like an absolute fucking lunatic to me. No offence mate.
Part of the beauty of being human is that we're always learning. We don't have answers for everything and the more we learn the more questions we have to answer. This keeps life interesting. Much more fun than your book of answers in which the answer to everyting is god. PS: have you heard the latest news?
I don't agree with you there. While I am not religious, nor do I have faith in any deity, the right to freedom of religion is realised by the constitution. Marx was a moron.
Marx may not have been right but he was obviously far from a moron. Calling one of the greatest intellectual of his time a moron because you disagree on one point is like calling Einstein a tard because he had a few things wrong. You have to put people in the context of their time and the society they lived in. For example, in europe, for the longest time, religion was used by an elite to keep the masses in check and make them dream of a better world in a distant future, just so they don't actually examine their present conditions of living and start a revolution against an extremely wealthy minority that was exploiting them. By prohibiting religion, Marx was wrong, but the goal he was trying to attain was right: not eliminating religion, but eliminating the people's illusions that they had to accept their current conditions while the aristocracy rolled on gold.
No no, Marx really was a moron. He was far from the greatest intellectual of his time. It's not even a question of getting things wrong, it's the nature of what he said. Taking his era into account, I'm more inclined to support Max Stirner. Take a look at the ten measures of Communism in the Communist Manifesto, they're disgusting. He was inefficient as a scholar, as the goals he wanted to achieve were actually achieved by those he considered the enemy of the people using completely opposing ideals - America in its golden years (which I consider to be 1776 to 1861). Marx was correct in believing that at the time people were alienated or unaware of the 'class condition', but to believe that he knew how to solve it, is very arrogant, especially considering his ideology required people to strictly follow his writings and abandon certain, and many, liberties; such as ownership of private property and inheritance. Can you believe he thought people shouldn't have the right to any inheritance! As for their conditions, it's still around somewhat today and I witnessed it first hand whilst recently talking to a self-confessed "working class bloke". Seriously, it's no-one else's fault, people need to first of all stop putting themselves down. No wonder most can't progress when they create the boundaries themselves by acknowledging them. In all, to me at least, it seems like he was trying to solve a problem with extremes, like take a sledge-hammer to a screw. Enlightening people of corruption and manipulation is one thing, but setting an oppressive ideology around it is another. I have many of Marx's and Engels' books on my shelf, I'm not someone who's passing judgement without reading and researching. I still think I'm justified in calling him a moron because there were many, many others before him with much less totalitarian ideas that solved the problems he saw. He was a classic example of someone trying to apply logic and politics to emotions, it cannot be done and it's the inherent down-fall with all Socialists.
I didn't expect to create quite a furor over a simple religion-bashing. But you have to admit, religion is kind of a refuge for the intellectually weak, those that can't accept the absence of a god. In this way, he was right. I don't suggest banning religion. However, I do think it is an aid to those who can't accept otherwise.
So just where was it that you heard me in order to know what I "sound" like? Are you or can you now hear words that are only written, and/or read, and determine what a person may "sound" like? And just how much time have you spent around "an absolute fucking lunatic" to know what he/she may "sound" like? You do know, that it really doesn't reflect favorably on you or those you choose to hang with, don't you? Or just maybe your vocabulary is so severely lacking and limited that that having to "try not to swear too much" is the only viable way for you to express yourself, huh? Which really means that you still are unable to answer either of the following, huh? Where Did the Universe Come From??? and How do you explain human consciousness?
I am a Christian yet I am also a scientist so to speak, so I naturally always ask why and challenge things. There are some things about Christianity that I can't explain, and I ultimately don't believe Christianity is 100% correct, for various reasons. But I do believe it is close and is accurate enough. The ultimate question in life isn't the age of the universe but is how will you live your life, and Christianity has me living what I believe to be a good life. The more I learn about life though the more I believe that there absolutely has to be some type of God or creator, or at least was at some time. I just can't buy the fact that life formed spontaneously on accident, and that all life evolved from this species. The way life works is so detailed and so complex and relies on so many factors occurring at the same time, even in the simplest organism, that all of this could not have just happened on accident. The odds of a living cell accidently forming from natural elements is practically impossible. And then it also is able to survive in changing conditions? And also reproduce itself? Its just not plausible. Now, I do believe in evolution, but that such extreme evolution. I believe that God created a wide array of organisms and then over time evolution has happened to greatly diversify this group of species.
No I can't, doesn't mean we never will. It wasn't long ago that eclipses, lightning and other cool stuff that exists was not explainable, in fact it was assumed to be created by God but now we can explain them as I'm sure in the future we will be able to answer your questions. How can you expect us the know everything about everything? Not possible, but as we evolve we learn more and more. Now a question for you, if god created man in his image how do you explain the different skin colors of people? If Adam and Eve were light in skin color how did people come about with dark skin, after all they couldn't have evolved that way just to protect them from the harsh sun rays where they lived.
Don't you know thats the way everyone talks. We have agreed to this semantics, this language. It is unconvincing to believe God would chose an unimpressive planet like earth situated in a tiny Solar system of a small galaxy. Why would God send his Son to such a boring place? Do you realize how small we all are?
What "us"? My conversation is currently with you. Why must you include an "us"? Do you need "us" and "we" support in order to attempt to justify your inability to answer my questions? Without the "security blanket" of "us" and "we", just admit that you and you alone don't have the answer. . .or any answer that you're publicly willing to admit to. The "us" of whom you speak seem to be totally unable to function apart from the "group hug" mentality that you so readily display in all of your "us(and 'we')" answers. Here is an article from one of my subscribed to sources; for me it answers the question, just as I would without the article (albeit, worded differently); and also, keep in mind as you read this that in all probability, Noah's sons were Triplets: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood†(Genesis 10:32). This is the concluding verse of the tenth chapter of Genesis, known as “The Table of Nations.†It tells us that all the original nations of the world were formed from the descendants of Noah. The basis of this worldwide division was their dispersion at Babel (Genesis 11:9), “every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations†(Genesis 10:5; see also 10:20 and 10:31). Lest anyone think this list of original nations is simply folklore, he should remember that William F. Albright, probably the greatest archaeologist of the twentieth century, called it “an astonishingly accurate document.†Many ethnologists still speak of Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic peoples and languages. But what about the origin of races? One searches the Bible in vain for this information, for neither the word nor the concept of “race†appears in the Bible at all! There is no such thing as a race—except the human race! Skin color and other supposed racial characteristics are mere recombinations of innate genetic factors, originally created in Adam and Eve to permit development of different family characteristics as the human race was commanded to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28; 9:1). “Race†is strictly an evolutionary concept used by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and the other nineteenth-century evolutionists to rationalize their white racism. But from the beginning it was not so! “God that made the world and all things therein; . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth†(Acts 17:24,26). “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?†(Malachi 2:10). No, I don't know "thats the way everyone talks"; and neither do you, and that you do know, don't you? Profanity (as well as vulgarity) is insanity. It shows, and is often indicative of a severe lack of ability to express one's self in a universally acceptable, cohesive, and effective manner with regards to communicating with others. For every person you produce that "talks" that way, I could produce two to five who don't. . .and are very good communicators. That being so, how would you have done it? Better yet, have you ever wondered (considering what little or much that you may know about GOD) why you're NOT GOD? According to Scripture, GOD IS and DOES according to ONLY HIS STANDARDS. . .not mine, nor yours'. You and I were Created by HIM from the most insignificant thing that HE Created: "dust". Just maybe were to you go to HIM with questions, instead of opinions, you'd might just learn why HE choose Earth and Us, rather than speculated elsewhere and someone else. Small is relative to what its being compared to. What are the particles that make up an atom? And what particles make up the particles that make up the atom? And what particles make up the particles that make up the particles that make up the atom? Etc. Instead of always going external, try going internal. Stand between two mirrors and try counting all the reflections in each.
Really??? WHY IS IT that the anti-religion people here are constantly throwing out unsupported statements (let's call them "lies", shall we?). Is it because atheism provides no moral center, no reason to NOT lie, hmmm??? (Such as, oh, making up charts?) Once again, someone writes while ignoring the facts. First of all - and I write this as a hardware engineer that specialized in semiconductor physics - science has provided plenty of bad opinions. String "Theory", for one. It's NOT a "theory", because it doesn't meet the criteria for a theory - you can't test it, and you can't use it to predict future events. Also, much of the alleged science behind global warming is unproven - "global warming" is all about money. How many answers did Religion provide? Religion provided one big huge answer - religion is responsible for MODERN CIVILIZATION! Think about it. After the fall of the Roman Empire, religion provided a social center, and most religions, especially Judaeo-Christian, provide a set of moral principles that allow people to live together peacefully and altruistically with empathy and harmony and HONESTY. Whereas, people like koan, simply make things up. People can't live together in harmony if they can't trust each other, can they? Many of the atheists here claim allegiance to science. Well, fine, koan. Use science to step up to answer the initial question of this thread - and do not cop out
Fine. Prove that the universe made itself. Go ahead, you made the claim. I'm calling your bluff. Prove it. Prove that the universe made itself. Prove it. PROVE IT. Stormwire, prove that the universe made itself. Go ahead, PROVE IT!!!
O.K. This looks like a concession to us from Roman. Atheism cannot explain where the universe came from. And atheism cannot explain human consciousness. Roman has conceded the question. And, from the looks and the length of this thread, after all this time no atheist has come up with an answer to either of those questions. Game over. Atheists have conceded. Thanks, Roman!