Oh. My. God.

aloysious said:
Wow that's some crazy shit. Better stick to the bible.

Genesis 9:20-28: Noah gets wasted

After Noah saved the entirety of land-based human and animal life, he did what pretty much any of us would do: he planted a vineyard and proceeded to get plastered, then passed out nude in his tent. Trouble is, his son Ham saw his dad naked, then went and told folks about it. Opinions vary about whether that’s all Ham did or not – some folks say that the story should be read as Ham having sex with his father or even castrating him. But whatever it was, the transgression was serious enough that drunk-ass Noah went ahead and cursed not Ham, but Ham’s son, Canaan, and all those who came after him.
Click to expand...
I always wondered why the water didn't rise again and wipe us out, doesn't seem Noah and gang were that great, either.
 
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death... - Albert Einstein


This is a rejection of creationism. If you take the ideas of causation seriously then there is no need, no basis, for assuming that man was specially created in his present form by the will of God. If you take the ideas of causation seriously you must reject creationism (note: regardless of what the shitstains claim... creationism is not simply a belief in a God).


The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. - Albert Einstein

Here, he would seem to even take exception with Spinoza's use of "God or Nature" to express his notion of "God."
 
Dick from the Internet said:
The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—that is, if he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it goes through. Hence science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death... - Albert Einstein


This is a rejection of creationism. If you take the ideas of causation seriously then there is no need, no basis, for assuming that man was specially created in his present form by the will of God. If you take the ideas of causation seriously you must reject creationism (note: regardless of what the shitstains claim... creationism is not simply a belief in a God).


The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. - Albert Einstein

Here, he would seem to even take exception with Spinoza's use of "God or Nature" to express his notion of "God."
Click to expand...

Seriously, did you even *READ* what you cut and pasted?

At all?

He's discussing the vengeful God... not the non-existent God...

He considers the vengeful God to be the non-existent God.

SMH
 
Taft2016 said:
So I say I believe species evolve, but I don't believe man is part of that equation.... that means I reject science and evolution completely.

I say I believe the Earth is warming, but I don't believe man is causing it.... that means I reject climate change.

Your lack of self-awareness is astounding. You have created your own little fundamentalist religion and call it "science."
Click to expand...

It means you reject the theory of evolution.

You arrived at, whatever it is you call your cultist/scientificky theory, by rejecting science. There is no scientific support for the idea that humans did not evolve. We know that humans have evolved and continue to evolve.

I have created nothing. In order to accept evolution you must accept evolution, i.e., that all living things are related through common descent and have reached their present form through natural process like natural selection. It's not my theory, I have not suggested that you must believe in it or that you can't disagree. You can't disagree and claim to agree. Not without me pointing out that you are a liar.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
It means you reject the theory of evolution.

You arrived at, whatever it is you call your cultist/scientificky theory, by rejecting science. There is no scientific support for the idea that humans did not evolve. We know that humans have evolved and continue to evolve.

I have created nothing. In order to accept evolution you must accept evolution, i.e., that all living things are related through common descent and have reached their present form through natural process like natural selection. It's not my theory, I have not suggested that you must believe in it or that you can't disagree. You can't disagree and claim to agree. Not without me pointing out that you are a liar.
Click to expand...

I understand.

You view evolution as your personal Koran and any deviation of its fundamentalism is heresy.
 
Taft2016 said:
Seriously, did you even *READ* what you cut and pasted?

At all?

He's discussing the vengeful God... not the non-existent God...

He considers the vengeful God to be the non-existent God.

SMH
Click to expand...


I sure did. I thought you were leaving for the weekend.

He clearly states that anyone who takes causation seriously can not entertain the idea of being that interferes. Either you believe that causes follow from effect or that the world is guided by a divine being. There is no middle ground for Einstein.
 
Taft2016 said:
I understand.

You view evolution as your personal Koran and any deviation of its fundamentalism is heresy.
Click to expand...

That's the theory of evolution. Again, it's not my theory (that is I am not the one who conceived of it and I cannot change the definition for you).

Again, you are not noting some small minor point of divergence from the theory. You have unambiguously rejected a basic synopsis of the theory of evolution. You can't do that then claim to accept the theory of evolution. Believe whatever you want dumb dumb but have the courage to be honest about it.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
I sure did. I thought you were leaving for the weekend.

He clearly states that anyone who takes causation seriously can not entertain the idea of being that interferes. Either you believe that causes follow from effect or that the world is guided by a divine being. There is no middle ground for Einstein.
Click to expand...

Not even close to what he said.

Oh, the fail.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
That's the theory of evolution. Again, it's not my theory (that is I am not the one who conceived of it and I cannot change the definition for you).

Again, you are not noting some small minor point of divergence from the theory. You have unambiguously rejected a basic synopsis of the theory of evolution. You can't do that then claim to accept the theory of evolution. Believe whatever you want dumb dumb but have the courage to be honest about it.
Click to expand...

Saying "evolution exists" is citing a "minor divergence" from the Theory of Evolution?

Lol. Psycho.
 
Taft2016 said:
Where did I say I have scientific proof of it? I said it's my belief.

Like the theory of Evolution is your belief.

Like I believe in evolution to a certain point.
Like I believe in global warming to a certain point.

Evolution has numerous components, one of which is that species evolve. I accept that part.
Another is that existing species evolved from lesser species. I accept that part as well.

I am not, however, an Evolutionary fundamentalist like yourself, who takes Darwin as your personal Lord and Savior.

There is no scientific proof either than all life emerged from single organism. Just theories.
Click to expand...

That illustrates your ignorance of evolution. Who claimed that evolution always has to be from a LESSER species?
 
Taft2016 said:
Saying "evolution exists" is citing a "minor divergence" from the Theory of Evolution?

Lol. Psycho.
Click to expand...

Huh? How did you get this from my post?

Again, you are NOT noting some small minor point of divergence from the theory. You have unambiguously rejected a basic synopsis of the theory of evolution. You can't do that then claim to accept the theory of evolution.
 
Dick from the Internet said:
Huh? How did you get this from my post?

Again, you are NOT noting some small minor point of divergence from the theory. You have unambiguously rejected a basic synopsis of the theory of evolution. You can't do that then claim to accept the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

Dumb as a stump.

Where did I say I accept the entire theory of evolution?

I accept part of it, which I have repeated ad infinitum.
 
Taft2016 said:
You asked for proof of what I believe?

Where's your proof that man evolved from a lesser being? Which being was it?

Can you prove what you believe?
Click to expand...

You stated evolution and creationism were not mutually exclusive as if it were a provable fact.

I asked you to prove it or admit that you're talking out of your ass.

So far all you've done is deflect out of your ass.

As far as you asking me where my proof is, I'm not the one who made any kind of claim that I have factual knowledge regarding the origin of the universe, so I have no burden of proof.

So once again, can you or can you not supply solid proof of your claim that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive?
 
Last edited:
Nomad said:
You stated evolution and creationism were not mutually exclusive as if it were a probable fact.

I asked you to prove it or admit that you're talking out of your ass.

So far all you've done is deflect out of your ass.

As far as you asking me where my proof is, I'm not the one who made any kind of claim that I have factual knowledge regarding the origin of the universe, so I have no burden of proof.

So once again, can you or can you not supply solid proof of your claim that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...

Two unproven theories are not mutually exclusive. Pretty simple, and they can coexist without disproving each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top