Group Coerced Censorship

I think he was quoting Han Solo.

Damn! I knew I had heard that from someplace before but it must've been long ago in a gal....errrr...ne'ermind.

If you can believe in being able to drive beautiful cars in the sky why not take the leap of faith and believe in 70 beautiful virgins? Better yet, deflatable and potable 70 virgins that can fit into the trunk of a car. I'm thinking, you can say "I'm Horny" and they all inflate, come to life, and proceed to please a man in ways we can't possibly imagine. When they are done servicing you they deflate and go back to the trunk of the car and you drive into the sunset.

If you can believe in being able to drive beautiful cars in the sky why not take the leap of faith and believe in 70 beautiful virgins? Better yet, deflatable and potable 70 virgins that can fit into the trunk of a car. I'm thinking, you can say "I'm Horny" and they all inflate, come to life, and proceed to please a man in ways we can't possibly imagine. When they are done servicing you they deflate and go back to the trunk of the car and you drive into the sunset.

Your idea of heaven is being able to put women in your trunk after sex? Paging Dr. Lecter. Paging Dr. Lecter.

What evidence? Do you accecpt being the offspring of nothing but maybe pondwater? Second of all the world is only 6000+ years old. Try me on this if you will, but everyone who has ever tried to disprove God has failed and ended up beliving in the first place. Can you come up with "factual evidence" that I am wrong and that God doesn't exist? No, you cannot, you can only regergatate what has been impounded into your head as truth. In actuallity it is a Theory, or ones belief, a lie or a myth that has been spoken to you since birth! In other words it is your religion!

One last thing on this Angry. This is a really weak take. It is not up to nonbelievers to prove that God doesn't exist, anymore than it is incumbent upon you to prove that I am not God, or that my neighbor can't fly, or that Venus is not made of silver, or any other infinite possibilities. What science does is look at observable evidence and try to come up with the best possible explanation based upon that. It doesn't purport to "prove" anything, only construct the best story. Often science is incorrect, but it will always be superior to religion as a method of interpreting reality because it requires no leap in judgment or suspension of rationality, and because it offers the simplest most logical explanation based upon observation and consensus.

Please reference 70 chip's post which I think makes a great point. Religion is a personal phenomenon that exists beyond reason. Gut level is what it is, I believe he says. If you are moved to believe in it that is fine, but if you try to invoke the language of science to argue that it is an equally plausible explanation for our reality, you will fail.

Finally, people often say that certain things are only "theories" and act as if they have made a good point, when they have not. In science something begins as a hypothesis. Once this hypothesis has been sufficiently investigated, and the majority of other scientists have accepted its conclusions, it becomes a theory, which means that it is accepted as the best possible explanation available. Even when the proof of such a theory becomes overwhelming, it will always be a theory. It is the strongest support the scientific community can bestow upon an argument. So again, believe in religion if you will, that's fine, but don't call something a theory and act as if that is an indictment of its believed veracity, because the opposite is true.

Your idea of heaven is being able to put women in your trunk after sex? Paging Dr. Lecter. Paging Dr. Lecter.

Not if you put it like that...lol

I just thought if heave provides perks, 70 virgins would be an in demand perk and probably doable by the almighty god. Them being inflatable is just a bonus.

If you can believe in being able to drive beautiful cars in the sky why not take the leap of faith and believe in 70 beautiful virgins? Better yet, deflatable and potable 70 virgins that can fit into the trunk of a car. I'm thinking, you can say "I'm Horny" and they all inflate, come to life, and proceed to please a man in ways we can't possibly imagine. When they are done servicing you they deflate and go back to the trunk of the car and you drive into the sunset.

Where exactly did all these virgins come from? Certainly not from this planet!

Wow. What an awful post. First of all, evolution is something that goes over thousands and thousands of years, second of all you made absolutely no mention of there being proof of god. You can ignore all the evidence of evolution if you want, but it might be best to keep it to yourself.Why so quick to dismiss one arguably incomplete explination (biblical creation), and buy another (evolution)?

Open-mindedness is the best possible way to approach the theory of evolution, but that would require one to be willing to potentially reject an incomplete theory. By all means correct me if I'm wrong Daseal, but what makes Angry's assumption that evolution is false any less awful that your assumption that the bible was fabricated?

Where exactly did all these virgins come from? Certainly not from this planet!

God works in mysterious ways?

Why so quick to dismiss one arguably incomplete explination (biblical creation), and buy another (evolution)?

Open-mindedness is the best possible way to approach the theory of evolution, but that would require one to be willing to potentially reject an incomplete theory. By all means correct me if I'm wrong Daseal, but what makes Angry's assumption that evolution is false any less awful that your assumption that the bible was fabricated?

It's not about anything being awful, it's about what's true. Moreover, it's not enough to argue that a theory is incomplete, you must also proffer a better explanation based on observable evidence, which no one has been able to do to the satisfaction of the scientific community. This is what so many religious people just don't understand: pointing out flaws in evolutionary theory without offering a better theory based on scientific standards constitutes an incomplete argument.

If you want to believe in religion fine, but don't act like it's equally plausible based on testable scientific observation because it's not.

Gtripp: I believe in evolution, those are my beliefs. It makes sense to me and is based in science. However, I don't feel like I'm on here saying: My beliefs are infallible and if you don't believe them you're stupid and going to hell. People will believe what they will and that is 100% their choice. However, I can't understand how anyone can say I'm 100% right when there is little to no evidence to support their argument.