Would you?

[LSU]

Here's a question. 2 actually. You only answer both if they both relate to you. If only one relates to you, don't bother answering the other one.


As a Christian, if you had empirical evidence that proves God does not exist, would you release it?


As an atheist, if you had empirical evidence God does exist, would you release it?


Bonus question... (for evolutionists) if you had empirical evidence that evolution was completely false (not just a subtheory of evolution, e.g. abiogenesis) would you release it?



My answers.

If I could prove God doesn't exist, I wouldn't divulge my information to the world. I would bury it.

If I could prove the complete idea of evolution wrong, I'd submit that sumbitch to the PNAS and enjoy the hell out of it.

[Jiddy78]

Undeniable proof?

I would release them...anonymously.

[Ed Who?]

The scenario is implausible in my state of thought.

At least the first part.

[LSU]

The scenario is implausible in my state of thought.

At least the first part.



I'll take that as "no comment."


All three are implausible in my state of thought.

[domenick2x]

If I could prove that God does not exist, I'd not release it for some time. Not enough people would believe it, regardless of level of proof. But there might be a point in time where that information could help society, and THAT would be critical. I would, however, have my documentation notarized so that if it were to be discovered by someone else, I could still claim credit.

As for the bonus question, if I had evidence that showed evolution to be false, I'd release it in a heartbeat and let the scientists figure out where the chips fall.

[LSU]

So, my logic for both of my answers.

1) Bury it

Despite some pretty negative aspects of religion (wars, persecution, etc), I'm a pretty firm believer that faith and spirituality are an overall "good" for the world. People benefit as a whole, and to take it away could erode some of those benefits. I see nothing wrong with people having faith, even if I were to know the faith was misguided. And to be honest, even if I were to somehow find the empirical evidence, I may not stop being a Christian. Obviously there would be some changes, but overall, the message of Christ would still resonate. His teachings are good regardless of whether or not he was actually the Son of God.

2) Flap my gums about evolution
It's science. It's meant to be tested, evaluated, and questioned...scientifically. I would be doing the field of science wrong if I didn't report what I knew, even if it meant breaking down a lot of people and their thoughts in the process. In order to advance science, you must have a firm grasp on the concepts. And if a concept is incorrect, it could lead to incorrect science along the way. It would have to be reported. Even if it meant Ryr, Vegas, Ed, and Kinja would be able to say "I told you so."

[domenick2x]

So, my logic for both of my answers.

1) Bury it

Despite some pretty negative aspects of religion (wars, persecution, etc), I'm a pretty firm believer that faith and spirituality are an overall "good" for the world. People benefit as a whole, and to take it away could erode some of those benefits. I see nothing wrong with people having faith, even if I were to know the faith was misguided. And to be honest, even if I were to somehow find the empirical evidence, I may not stop being a Christian. Obviously there would be some changes, but overall, the message of Christ would still resonate. His teachings are good regardless of whether or not he was actually the Son of God.

2) Flap my gums about evolution
It's science. It's meant to be tested, evaluated, and questioned...scientifically. I would be doing the field of science wrong if I didn't report what I knew, even if it meant breaking down a lot of people and their thoughts in the process. In order to advance science, you must have a firm grasp on the concepts. And if a concept is incorrect, it could lead to incorrect science along the way. It would have to be reported. Even if it meant Ryr, Vegas, Ed, and Kinja would be able to say "I told you so."
I'm with you 100%.

That scares me, a little.

I'm sure there would be a 10 year span where the evolutionists tried to fit 'proof' into some exception role in the theory...

[LSU]

I'm with you 100%.

That scares me, a little.

I'm sure there would be a 10 year span where the evolutionists tried to fit 'proof' into some exception role in the theory...


You usually are. Fear not.



Oh, I'm sure there would be evolutionists that would disagree. It would take awhile for the idea to take hold, no doubt. But, assuming the data was good enough, it would hold strong through a few years of experimentation, and eventually sway the majority of the group.

[Roy Munson]

The scenario is implausible in my state of thought.

At least the first part.
way to have an open mind...

[Roy Munson]

If I could prove god exists, I'd make as much money possible releasing my findings...

[Hotpapa666]

I disagree to a certian extent with "1)" above. I am, as everyone knows an atheist, and I think that humanity does "good" or "ill" by it's own volition. Religion has had as negative an effect on the world as it has had a positive.

As for the original question. As an atheist, If I had evidence of god I would present it on the largest platform possible.

[domenick2x]

I disagree to a certian extent with "1)" above. I am, as everyone knows an atheist, and I think that humanity does "good" or "ill" by it's own volition. Religion has had as negative an effect on the world as it has had a positive.

As for the original question. As an atheist, If I had evidence of god I would present it on the largest platform possible.
I think that the net effect of religion is positive, though I also think it's not as big a positive as some do. There's a lot of ugly nasty stuff out there, and I'm not just talking about the Bigs.

Non-religious world as net 5, on a scale of 0-10, I'd put our current progress at 6.2, trending slightly downward due to fundamentalist views (not just Muslim).

[LSU]

I disagree to a certian extent with "1)" above. I am, as everyone knows an atheist, and I think that humanity does "good" or "ill" by it's own volition. Religion has had as negative an effect on the world as it has had a positive.

As for the original question. As an atheist, If I had evidence of god I would present it on the largest platform possible.



I don't think you take into account the resentment people may feel (a whole fucking bunch of them) for being led astray in their life. How they choose to channel that resentment is anyone's guess. That could have just as much of a negative impact as anything.

It's not as if they'll find out the news and the world will become harmonious.

[Jiddy78]

I don't think you take into account the resentment people may feel (a whole fucking bunch of them) for being led astray in their life. How they choose to channel that resentment is anyone's guess. That could have just as much of a negative impact as anything.

It's not as if they'll find out the news and the world will become harmonious.

I'd bet dollars to donuts those guys on religion TV would still pack in the auditoriums...Just keep on goin' like nothing happened.

[LSU]

I think that the net effect of religion is positive, though I also think it's not as big a positive as some do. There's a lot of ugly nasty stuff out there, and I'm not just talking about the Bigs.

Non-religious world as net 5, on a scale of 0-10, I'd put our current progress at 6.2, trending slightly downward due to fundamentalist views (not just Muslim).


correct. I think.

Too much is judged on the vocal minority and people forget the millions of quiet majority that are just trying to be the best person they can be, and believe their religious beliefs help them do so.

[domenick2x]

correct. I think.

Too much is judged on the vocal minority and people forget the millions of quiet majority that are just trying to be the best person they can be, and believe their religious beliefs help them do so.
I agree, but the fact remains that fundamentalist views carry a lot of weight. Back to basics, core beliefs, etc. In America, the right has been co-opted by a certain amount of kow-towing to the fundamentalists. In the Middle East, the governments are often limited by or afraid of (or, until recently, completely overcome by) fundamentalist views.

Fundamentalists are exclusive by nature - anchors pulling society down, as they want to exclude/demonize other parts of society that they disagree with (gays, immigrants, women, etc). Their political power limits society at large.

[Roy Munson]

I'd bet dollars to donuts those guys on religion TV would still pack in the auditoriums...Just keep on goin' like nothing happened.
no doubt.

[domenick2x]

I'd bet dollars to donuts those guys on religion TV would still pack in the auditoriums...Just keep on goin' like nothing happened.
"God cannot be proven or disproven!"

[LSU]

I agree, but the fact remains that fundamentalist views carry a lot of weight. Back to basics, core beliefs, etc. In America, the right has been co-opted by a certain amount of kow-towing to the fundamentalists. In the Middle East, the governments are often limited by or afraid of (or, until recently, completely overcome by) fundamentalist views.

Fundamentalists are exclusive by nature - anchors pulling society down, as they want to exclude/demonize other parts of society that they disagree with (gays, immigrants, women, etc). Their political power limits society at large.


You could, perhaps, make an argument that the loss of religious beliefs by the non-fundamentalists would make it worse. There is a balance at play with the non-fundamentalists, to an extent, keeping the fundamentalists in check.

If such evidence were available, the true fundamentalists probably aren't swayed, and can still cause the situations they do now, or perhaps worse.

In countries where they'd be elected, it may not happen, but where there are power struggles (i.e., Mid East), there could be a worsening, because of the fear of the fundamentalists that they're going to lose the thing that helps them keep control of the masses. Could drive them further to the extreme.

Or not.

[LSU]

And to clarify, when I posed the question, I meant it as the evidence would be enough to sway most of the people, that is that most religious people would become not religious, or most non-religious would become religious, or most evolutionists would become non-evolutionists.

Not that the evidence would be out there and everything else would stay essentially the same.

[Roy Munson]

And to clarify, when I posed the question, I meant it as the evidence would be enough to sway most of the people, that is that most religious people would become not religious, or most non-religious would become religious, or most evolutionists would become non-evolutionists.

Not that the evidence would be out there and everything else would stay essentially the same.
you underestimate the power of faith and turning a blind eye...


WITCH... WITCH... WITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LSU]

you underestimate the power of faith and turning a blind eye...


WITCH... WITCH... WITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Not in a hypothetical situation I don't.

[Jiddy78]

Here's a question. 2 actually. You only answer both if they both relate to you. If only one relates to you, don't bother answering the other one.


As a Christian, if you had empirical evidence that proves God does not exist, would you release it?


As an atheist, if you had empirical evidence God does exist, would you release it?


Bonus question... (for evolutionists) if you had empirical evidence that evolution was completely false (not just a subtheory of evolution, e.g. abiogenesis) would you release it?



My answers.

If I could prove God doesn't exist, I wouldn't divulge my information to the world. I would bury it.

If I could prove the complete idea of evolution wrong, I'd submit that sumbitch to the PNAS and enjoy the hell out of it.


Where's Hotpapa to discount this question?

[Roy Munson]

Not in a hypothetical situation I don't.
My hypothetical includes a shitload of people ignoring your hypothetical evidence.

[LSU]

My hypothetical includes a shitload of people ignoring your hypothetical evidence.

But those that "claim" all it takes is proof would have it.

[Roy Munson]

But those that "claim" all it takes is proof would have it.
No proof that could ever be produced would sway Ed or those like him.

[Jiddy78]

But those that "claim" all it takes is proof would have it.

If proof was undeniably presented, there is no doubt, over time, religion would fade away...but that could take many years...Possibly a century or so IMO.

[LSU]

If proof was undeniably presented, there is no doubt, over time, religion would fade away...but that could take many years...Possibly a century or so IMO.



I don't disagree.

[Jiddy78]

No proof that could ever be produced would sway Ed or those like him.

Well...There is no proof. So you are speaking hypothetically....and therefore predicting that which you could not know.

[Ed Who?]

way to have an open mind...

You call it being closeminded, I call it having faith. No biggie.

[Roy Munson]

Well...There is no proof. So you are speaking hypothetically....and therefore predicting that which you could not know.
I predict that the power of faith is greater than the power of logical reasoning...

This is true today no matter what proof exists or doesn't exist.

[LSU]

You call it being closeminded, I call it having faith. No biggie.


Do you think you turn your back on your faith, or lose faith by partaking in the answering?

[Roy Munson]

Do you think you turn your back on your faith, or lose faith by partaking in the answering?
he has to turn in his faith card.

[Vegas]

If I had proof that God doesn't exist, I would tell everyone I could immediately.

[Smoke681]

If I had 100% solid undeniable in your face wham bam thank you ma'am indisputable proof that God never did and does not currently exist, there's a pretty good chance I'd lose it. Literally. The very foundation of my life will have been removed.

I'd go into hiding. I would not release the information.

[IBC]

you underestimate the power of faith and turning a blind eye...


WITCH... WITCH... WITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what also floats in water?

[Smoke681]

And what also floats in water?
A duck!

[IBC]

A duck!

Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science?

[Ed Who?]

Do you think you turn your back on your faith, or lose faith by partaking in the answering?

I don't think that's the issue. I'm curious about the beginnings of humanity, but I think I'll waste less time simply waiting until I meet the Creator than I would pouring tons of effort trying to prove one way or the other.

[LSU]

I don't think that's the issue. I'm curious about the beginnings of humanity, but I think I'll waste less time simply waiting until I meet the Creator than I would pouring tons of effort trying to prove one way or the other.


It was never a requirement for this discussion that you spend loads of time to do so.

[Ed Who?]

It was never a requirement for this discussion that you spend loads of time to do so.

I think that it would take loads of time to discover said evidence.

[LSU]

I think that it would take loads of time to discover said evidence.

In real life, yes. But that was never a stipulation in this hypothetical situation.

So, you can assume it just fell in your lap. Or willed to you from an ancestor. Or, pretty much anything.

[IBC]

Here's a question. 2 actually. You only answer both if they both relate to you. If only one relates to you, don't bother answering the other one.


As a Christian, if you had empirical evidence that proves God does not exist, would you release it?


As an atheist, if you had empirical evidence God does exist, would you release it?


Bonus question... (for evolutionists) if you had empirical evidence that evolution was completely false (not just a subtheory of evolution, e.g. abiogenesis) would you release it?



My answers.

If I could prove God doesn't exist, I wouldn't divulge my information to the world. I would bury it.

If I could prove the complete idea of evolution wrong, I'd submit that sumbitch to the PNAS and enjoy the hell out of it.

As an atheist? Yes, I would release that info and i would cease to be an atheist. Likewise I would release the data disproving evolution too. Truth is more important than pride.

[fahvra]

if I had the proof a god doesnt exist, id sell it to someone else to release because the god nuts would make me a target.

if I had proof disproving evolution, I d release it for free so I could get into heaven. :)

[swordfish]

I think that the net effect of religion is positive, though I also think it's not as big a positive as some do. There's a lot of ugly nasty stuff out there, and I'm not just talking about the Bigs.

Non-religious world as net 5, on a scale of 0-10, I'd put our current progress at 6.2, trending slightly downward due to fundamentalist views (not just Muslim).

http://www.hategun.com/blog/images/suicideBomberKid.jpg

http://whgbetc.com/mind/inquisition1.jpg

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/grunewald/crucifixion/crucifixion.jpg

You sure about that?

[rip]

What's a Christian atheist?

[LSU]

What's a Christian atheist?

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_462.shtml

[rip]

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_462.shtml

Wow...that is a lot of double talk. He should run for office.

[LSU]

Wow...that is a lot of double talk. He should run for office.



Sounds like an emo to me.


edit: fuck, emo to me is a palindrome.

[rip]

Sounds like an emo to me.


edit: fuck, emo to me is a palindrome.

Most atheists that spend all their time discussing religion and God are emos.

Quite a douchebag this guy is though in site design. Notice how he makes all the periods a link to something? He can't even decide how to describe where he is sending you.

[LSU]

Most atheists that spend all their time discussing religion and God are emos.

Quite a douchebag this guy is though in site design. Notice how he makes all the periods a link to something? He can't even decide how to describe where he is sending you.

Did you watch his video at the top? It explains a lot.

[domenick2x]

http://www.hategun.com/blog/images/suicideBomberKid.jpg

http://whgbetc.com/mind/inquisition1.jpg

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/grunewald/crucifixion/crucifixion.jpg

You sure about that?
Art, architecture, literature, ethics, mythology, law, history, compassion, democracy, good vs. evil, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

No one talks about how Vlad the Impaler said his prayers every night...

Yes, I am. Again, small net positive.

[Hotpapa666]

Art, architecture, literature, ethics, mythology, law, history, compassion, democracy, good vs. evil, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

No one talks about how Vlad the Impaler said his prayers every night...

Yes, I am. Again, small net positive.

The art and architecture of the church is incredible, however, looking at the flip side, the suffering and the poverity that the masses had to endure to get those churches up was substantial. Historically, it's a wash at best. In recent history, religion has been a major hinderence to discovery, knowledge, freedom, safety,...

[LSU]

The art and architecture of the church is incredible, however, looking at the flip side, the suffering and the poverity that the masses had to endure to get those churches up was substantial. Historically, it's a wash at best. In recent history, religion has been a major hinderence to discovery, knowledge, freedom, safety,...



Yeah, don't know about that. Perhaps back in the 1600s, but recently (last 50 years at least) science and other endeavors have carried on pretty well with or without religious approval.

And I know no one in my church (past or current) that have damaged freedom or affected safety...at least not for religious reason.

[Hotpapa666]

Yeah, don't know about that. Perhaps back in the 1600s, but recently (last 50 years at least) science and other endeavors have carried on pretty well with or without religious approval.

And I know no one in my church (past or current) that have damaged freedom or affected safety...at least not for religious reason.

Stem Cell research is an area that comes to mind where Religion is impedding science.

As for freedom, the effect on Religion to limit freedom in America IS small. But, world wide it is huge, in India, there is a prohibition on kissing on film or TV to apease religious zealots. Unmarried women and men can't be seem alone together in public in many Islamic countries. As we've seen in Texas, teenage girls are forced into marriages with much older men; affecting their freedom. It is illegal to criticize the Orthodoxy in Russia. Suicide bombings certainly affect safety.

Just a few examples.

[Smoke681]

Stem Cell research is an area that comes to mind where Religion is impedding science.

As for freedom, the effect on Religion to limit freedom in America IS small. But, world wide it is huge, in India, there is a prohibition on kissing on film or TV to apease religious zealots. Unmarried women and men can't be seem alone together in public in many Islamic countries. As we've seen in Texas, teenage girls are forced into marriages with much older men; affecting their freedom. It is illegal to criticize the Orthodoxy in Russia. Suicide bombings certainly affect safety.

Just a few examples.
Hotpapa, meet Earth.

This stuff has been going on for thousands of years. And it'll continue, despite anyone's best efforts.

[LSU]

Stem Cell research is an area that comes to mind where Religion is impedding science.

As for freedom, the effect on Religion to limit freedom in America IS small. But, world wide it is huge, in India, there is a prohibition on kissing on film or TV to apease religious zealots. Unmarried women and men can't be seem alone together in public in many Islamic countries. As we've seen in Texas, teenage girls are forced into marriages with much older men; affecting their freedom. It is illegal to criticize the Orthodoxy in Russia. Suicide bombings certainly affect safety.

Just a few examples.

I figured SCR would be brought up. But that's only embryonic SCR, and that's a pretty minute portion of science and discovery. But I do agree it has been impeded.

As for the social examples given, without a doubt there are some fundamentalists and those that take religion to an extreme. But there are the millions of others that are just people.

It's easy to point out all that bad in religion because that's what is publicized. You don't hear about the religious people down the street that have a happy family and go about their lives and be nice to others and help in any way they can. Because that's not going to sell newspapers.

No one is saying the world is great because of religion. But as Dom said, it's responsible for a lot of good, too. Donations, missions, food banks, hell, the churches down here likely did a lot more for Katrina victims immediately after the storm than the feds did.

[LSU]

Stem Cell research is an area that comes to mind where Religion is impedding science.

As for freedom, the effect on Religion to limit freedom in America IS small. But, world wide it is huge, in India, there is a prohibition on kissing on film or TV to apease religious zealots. Unmarried women and men can't be seem alone together in public in many Islamic countries. As we've seen in Texas, teenage girls are forced into marriages with much older men; affecting their freedom. It is illegal to criticize the Orthodoxy in Russia. Suicide bombings certainly affect safety.

Just a few examples.

Also, a lot of the people that are oppressive likely would be that way with or without religion. They would just find some other reason to do it. As evidenced by the number of religious people worldwide that aren't assholes, simply being religious doesn't make people do bad things. They get those ideas on their own and fit their religion around it rather than fitting their actions around their religion.

[Hotpapa666]

I figured SCR would be brought up. But that's only embryonic SCR, and that's a pretty minute portion of science and discovery. But I do agree it has been impeded.

As for the social examples given, without a doubt there are some fundamentalists and those that take religion to an extreme. But there are the millions of others that are just people.

It's easy to point out all that bad in religion because that's what is publicized. You don't hear about the religious people down the street that have a happy family and go about their lives and be nice to others and help in any way they can. Because that's not going to sell newspapers.

No one is saying the world is great because of religion. But as Dom said, it's responsible for a lot of good, too. Donations, missions, food banks, hell, the churches down here likely did a lot more for Katrina victims immediately after the storm than the feds did.

I'm certainly not saying that Religion has only done bad things. There have certainly been some wonderful things accomplished by Religion and Religious people. But, from my point of view, in the past 100 years or so, Religion has done more harm than good. And before Religion was at best a 5 on a scale of 10.

[Ed Who?]

Stem Cell research is an area that comes to mind where Religion is impedding science. .

Far from the truth.

As far as I know, it's perfectly legal to do stem-cell research, just needs to be done in privately-funded laboratories.

I don't necessarily think it's right, but as far as I know religion has little impact. If you want to spin it as a religious issue, you can, but it's as much as conservative spending issue as it is religious.

[LSU]

I'm certainly not saying that Religion has only done bad things. There have certainly been some wonderful things accomplished by Religion and Religious people. But, from my point of view, in the past 100 years or so, Religion has done more harm than good. And before Religion was at best a 5 on a scale of 10.


Considering what sorts of things transpired 101+ years ago, I really can't agree. Moreover, I really don't even understand. I mean, thinking about witch hunts, crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc... That's some heavy shit.

[ryr8828]

Far from the truth.

As far as I know, it's perfectly legal to do stem-cell research, just needs to be done in privately-funded laboratories.

I don't necessarily think it's right, but as far as I know religion has little impact. If you want to spin it as a religious issue, you can, but it's as much as conservative spending issue as it is religious.

It's likely that he wants to use aborted fetuses for this research, and also have us taxpayers pay the tab.

[Smoke681]

It's likely that he wants to use aborted fetuses for this research, and also have us taxpayers pay the tab.
LSU barbecues aborted fetuses.

Raise ye pitchforks!

[LSU]

Far from the truth.

As far as I know, it's perfectly legal to do stem-cell research, just needs to be done in privately-funded laboratories.

I don't necessarily think it's right, but as far as I know religion has little impact. If you want to spin it as a religious issue, you can, but it's as much as conservative spending issue as it is religious.


Only already established embryonic SCs can be used for use in government funded studies. So the gov't does still fund it somewhat, I think, just nothing new since about what, 2004 or 2005 or so? Any other type of stem cell research is fair game, publically or privately: skin stem cells, cord stem cells, adult stem cells, etc.

[LSU]

LSU barbecues aborted fetuses.

Raise ye pitchforks!


I never said I bbq'd them. They're best sampled raw.

[LSU]

It's likely that he wants to use aborted fetuses for this research, and also have us taxpayers pay the tab.


I don't know that papa does research anymore. If he ever did.

[IBC]

I never said I bbq'd them. They're best sampled raw.

Pickled?

[LSU]

It's likely that he wants to use aborted fetuses for this research, and also have us taxpayers pay the tab.


You make me pay taxes for a war that kills children and adults, which I don't agree with. It's only fair that I make you pay for embryonic stem cell research and dead fetuses that you don't agree with.

And I'd bet a larger portion of my tax dollars go to the war effort and reconstruction of Iraq than the percent of your money that would go towards ESCR.

[Ed Who?]

You make me pay taxes for a war that kills children and adults, which I don't agree with. It's only fair that I make you pay for embryonic stem cell research and dead fetuses that you don't agree with.

And I'd bet a larger portion of my tax dollars go to the war effort and reconstruction of Iraq than the percent of your money that would go towards ESCR.

Don't bring your lack of patriotism into this.

[LSU]

Don't bring your lack of patriotism into this.


Damn it! Forgot that not supporting the war equals a lack of patriotism.

Golly.

I guess by that train of thought, not supporting ESCR means people don't support cures for disease.

[ryr8828]

You make me pay taxes for a war that kills children and adults, which I don't agree with. It's only fair that I make you pay for embryonic stem cell research and dead fetuses that you don't agree with.

And I'd bet a larger portion of my tax dollars go to the war effort and reconstruction of Iraq than the percent of your money that would go towards ESCR.

Hussein killed many times more innocents than Iraq's liberators did.

Matter of fact, the number of innocents killed by Iraq's liberators are few. The number killed by terrorists and civil war are no doubt much larger.

[Ed Who?]

Damn it! Forgot that not supporting the war equals a lack of patriotism.

Golly.

I guess by that train of thought, not supporting ESCR means people don't support cures for disease.

Just the diseases that weren't created by GWB to exterminate gays and blacks.

[LSU]

Hussein killed many times more innocents than Iraq's liberators did.

Matter of fact, the number of innocents killed by Iraq's liberators are few. The number killed by terrorists and civil war are no doubt much larger.


Oh, OK. I guess I could ask how much US taxpayer money went into first getting Saddam into power there, and then how much went to arming him.

Of course back then, I didn't pay taxes because I was like 3, but you get my point, I'm sure.

[LSU]

Just the diseases that weren't created by GWB to exterminate gays and blacks.


And the Muslims. Can't forget them. And New Orleanians. Wait, that was water. Water's not a disease. Close enough.

[Ed Who?]

And the Muslims. Can't forget them. And New Orleanians. Wait, that was water. Water's not a disease. Close enough.

Well, water is toxic.

Actually, a couple of years ago, we got a huge yuk-yuk at work when they came around and put up signs that said "Nitrogen present - potential asphyxiant" because we use it as an inert atmosphere.

We were waiting for the "Water present - potential asphyxiant" signs to show up as well.

[LSU]

Well, water is toxic.

Actually, a couple of years ago, we got a huge yuk-yuk at work when they came around and put up signs that said "Nitrogen present - potential asphyxiant" because we use it as an inert atmosphere.

We were waiting for the "Water present - potential asphyxiant" signs to show up as well.

Be careful, you could get the bends.

[ryr8828]

Oh, OK. I guess I could ask how much US taxpayer money went into first getting Saddam into power there, and then how much went to arming him.

Of course back then, I didn't pay taxes because I was like 3, but you get my point, I'm sure.He came into power on his own.

[Ed Who?]

Be careful, you could get the bends.

The problem is some dude intentionally offed himself by sucking on the nitrogen line.

Because some unstable dude decided he wanted to die, I've gotta read an absurd sign about the dangers of something that constitutes 70% of the air I breathe. That's great.

[LSU]

The problem is some dude intentionally offed himself by sucking on the nitrogen line.

Because some unstable dude decided he wanted to die, I've gotta read an absurd sign about the dangers of something that constitutes 70% of the air I breathe. That's great.


If I were going to off myself with nitrogen, it would be liquid nitrogen.

Being frozen solid in 0.58 seconds would be pretty awesome. At least compared to huffing N gas.

[LSU]

He came into power on his own.


My bad.

No disagreement with arming him though, right?

[Hotpapa666]

I don't know that papa does research anymore. If he ever did.

I do not currently do research but my career has always been science related. Mostly micro-biology. But, those days are probaly over; I can't deal with being a low-level lab rat anymore.

[LSU]

I do not currently do research but my career has always been science related. Mostly micro-biology. But, those days are probaly over; I can't deal with being a low-level lab rat anymore.


Some days I yearn for coming in at time A, leaving at time B and being done with it for the day.

[Hotpapa666]

Some days I yearn for coming in at time A, leaving at time B and being done with it for the day.

Perhaps moving to Japan and getting a job teaching Elementary School ESL in gym class is something to consider.

[residenceevil]

The actions by the US Govt, especially under the Bush regime, are far from being arguing points to anyone's favor.

A war that's draining the US economy and pushing it further into debt = bad. Can we all agree with that?

What was this thread about again...?

[residenceevil]

Here's a question. 2 actually. You only answer both if they both relate to you. If only one relates to you, don't bother answering the other one.


As a Christian, if you had empirical evidence that proves God does not exist, would you release it?

No, because you would never be able to convince the hardcore Christian's that your evidence was true. They would deny it. In fact, it probably says something about this in the Bible somewhere. So there'd be no point.

As an atheist, if you had empirical evidence God does exist, would you release it?

I'm not an atheist, but I'll answer anyways. Read my argument for the first question. Why would I release this information when there's hardcore believers in the non-existence of the Higher power? You're never going to convince everyone and it would only lead to trouble.

Bonus question... (for evolutionists) if you had empirical evidence that evolution was completely false (not just a subtheory of evolution, e.g. abiogenesis) would you release it?

How about proof that creationism exists in the first place? Creationism is just a belief. It's all Faith based with no real proof. A Bible written by people thousands and thousands of years 'after the fact' hardly is damning evidence.



My answers.

If I could prove God doesn't exist, I wouldn't divulge my information to the world. I would bury it.

If I could prove the complete idea of evolution wrong, I'd submit that sumbitch to the PNAS and enjoy the hell out of it.[/QUOTE]

[domenick2x]

How about proof that creationism exists in the first place? Creationism is just a belief. It's all Faith based with no real proof. A Bible written by people thousands and thousands of years 'after the fact' hardly is damning evidence.

God could show up, do a few miracles, hand out a head shot or two... then he could spontaneously create a new animal out of the ether.....

[ignorant]

The last thing I would do to a country at any time is to take away their faith. That seems to be the one thing in America that I have always relied on. If I was given undeniable proof of God's existance, it gets buried and I would try my hardest to forget I know anything about it. I just don't think we need to deny people the right to believe in something, especially if it makes them feel better about the world and how things operate.

It would be like telling someone the end to a really good movie where you just know that it is going to end up right, but it might not.

and that would piss me off.

[Jiddy78]

The last thing I would do to a country at any time is to take away their faith. That seems to be the one thing in America that I have always relied on. If I was given undeniable proof of God's existance, it gets buried and I would try my hardest to forget I know anything about it. I just don't think we need to deny people the right to believe in something, especially if it makes them feel better about the world and how things operate.

It would be like telling someone the end to a really good movie where you just know that it is going to end up right, but it might not.

and that would piss me off.

Your house is worth half....eh...forget it.

[Roy Munson]

Your house is worth half....eh...forget it.
I'm so glad I don't live in Florida or California.

[residenceevil]

The last thing I would do to a country at any time is to take away their faith. That seems to be the one thing in America that I have always relied on. If I was given undeniable proof of God's existance, it gets buried and I would try my hardest to forget I know anything about it. I just don't think we need to deny people the right to believe in something, especially if it makes them feel better about the world and how things operate.
It would be like telling someone the end to a really good movie where you just know that it is going to end up right, but it might not.

and that would piss me off.

That would be perfectly fine if Religion didn't try to deny rights to people in the name of Religion. When Religion is thrown into the decision making of running this country, and a part of legislation, that is where we need to draw the line. If God undeniably does not exist, and if people would truly believe me if I told them so, then I would have to proclaim it so that it stops affecting other people's lives inadvertantly.

[ignorant]

That would be perfectly fine if Religion didn't try to deny rights to people in the name of Religion. When Religion is thrown into the decision making of running this country, and a part of legislation, that is where we need to draw the line. If God undeniably does not exist, and if people would truly believe me if I told them so, then I would have to proclaim it so that it stops affecting other people's lives inadvertantly.

A lot of people take religion as a philosophy, especially in law making and the such. It gives you a basis for what is right and wrong, which, if I were a lawmaker, is how i would do things. I have read many philosophers, and i see the Bible and the Christian view as how many of them started on their paths.

I do agree that some people go overboard with this way of living, but I think it is necessary at times to hold onto some some sort of "truth" even if it isn't accepted by everyone.

I think it would be an evil thing to do to deny people the right to believe what they want. I don't think the world will be a better place because no one will have a care about heaven or hell and total anarchy would break out. Sometimes religion can be a very good bassi for control.

[Smoke681]

The actions by the US Govt, especially under the Bush regime, are far from being arguing points to anyone's favor.

A war that's draining the US economy and pushing it further into debt = bad. Can we all agree with that?

What was this thread about again...?
Not Bush, not about war, and not about economy?

[residenceevil]

Not Bush, not about war, and not about economy?

Correct...I knew it got off track somewhere...

[residenceevil]

A lot of people take religion as a philosophy, especially in law making and the such. It gives you a basis for what is right and wrong, which, if I were a lawmaker, is how i would do things. I have read many philosophers, and i see the Bible and the Christian view as how many of them started on their paths.

I do agree that some people go overboard with this way of living, but I think it is necessary at times to hold onto some some sort of "truth" even if it isn't accepted by everyone.

I think it would be an evil thing to do to deny people the right to believe what they want. I don't think the world will be a better place because no one will have a care about heaven or hell and total anarchy would break out. Sometimes religion can be a very good bassi for control.

All valid points...but can't we all agree that things like murder and stealing are wrong without Religion telling us so? Doesn't it go back to that whole Hobbes/Locke thing? Can't remember which one stood for which philosophy, but one said people are generally GOOD by nature, while the other said people are BAD by nature. If we believe the theory that people are GOOD by nature, than we really shouldn't need Religion as a moral guide since we would instinctively know what is right/wrong.

The obvious bad moral things (killing, theft, anything that directly affects someone else's life in a negative way) I believe everyone (with obvious exceptions for the few crazy's who make up the world) can agree is wrong and should not be done. We don't need the Bible to tell us that. However, issues that have absolutely no effect on anyone except for the person to whom it involves (e.g. gay marriage) should not be a legislative issue. I think these are the people who take it overboard as you said.

[LSU]

All valid points...but can't we all agree that things like murder and stealing are wrong without Religion telling us so? Doesn't it go back to that whole Hobbes/Locke thing? Can't remember which one stood for which philosophy, but one said people are generally GOOD by nature, while the other said people are BAD by nature. If we believe the theory that people are GOOD by nature, than we really shouldn't need Religion as a moral guide since we would instinctively know what is right/wrong.

The obvious bad moral things (killing, theft, anything that directly affects someone else's life in a negative way) I believe everyone (with obvious exceptions for the few crazy's who make up the world) can agree is wrong and should not be done. We don't need the Bible to tell us that. However, issues that have absolutely no effect on anyone except for the person to whom it involves (e.g. gay marriage) should not be a legislative issue. I think these are the people who take it overboard as you said.



The question isn't about whether we need it, it's about whether it helps accomplish it. If people think believing in a 3 legged mule with wings helps them become better people, go for it.

[residenceevil]

The question isn't about whether we need it, it's about whether it helps accomplish it. If people think believing in a 3 legged mule with wings helps them become better people, go for it.


I would say that it can't hurt. However, I can't say everyone that follows the moral laws of the Bible live morally sound lives (e.g. the recent Priest molestation issue). But the arguement to that would be that no one is without sin except Jesus, right?

If someone is not leading a moral life WITH the teachings of the Bible, than what is the point of using it as a moral compass to begin with? I guess what I'm saying is that it's not all that effective, and that if someone truly wants to lead a life of good morals they have to venture out beyond the Bible and do it on their own. An Atheist can lead just as moral a life as a Christian can.

[LSU]

I would say that it can't hurt. However, I can't say everyone that follows the moral laws of the Bible live morally sound lives (e.g. the recent Priest molestation issue). But the arguement to that would be that no one is without sin except Jesus, right?

If someone is not leading a moral life WITH the teachings of the Bible, than what is the point of using it as a moral compass to begin with? I guess what I'm saying is that it's not all that effective, and that if someone truly wants to lead a life of good morals they have to venture out beyond the Bible and do it on their own. An Atheist can lead just as moral a life as a Christian can.


That's not an argument I'd use. I'd say that bad people will do bad things whether or not they claim to be religious. Without religion, there would be bad in the world just as well as there would be good in the world. The crazies would just find another thing to push to an extreme to justify their actions.

No one (at least not me) is disputing that you can't lead a good life as an atheist.

[residenceevil]

That's not an argument I'd use. I'd say that bad people will do bad things whether or not they claim to be religious. Without religion, there would be bad in the world just as well as there would be good in the world. The crazies would just find another thing to push to an extreme to justify their actions.

No one (at least not me) is disputing that you can't lead a good life as an atheist.


Are we all bad people then? Everyone does bad things that the Bible says not to. No one can claim to be pure of that. And I agree, there would be bad in the world without Religion as well. Would there be more bad in the world without Religion...possibly, but I guess we can't say for certain. I would say it's plausible though.

[LSU]

Are we all bad people then? Everyone does bad things that the Bible says not to. No one can claim to be pure of that. And I agree, there would be bad in the world without Religion as well. Would there be more bad in the world without Religion...possibly, but I guess we can't say for certain. I would say it's plausible though.

We all have the potential to do bad or to do good. The argument that we all start out at either good or bad is one that I don't think is relevant or makes much sense.

[domenick2x]

I would say that it can't hurt. However, I can't say everyone that follows the moral laws of the Bible live morally sound lives (e.g. the recent Priest molestation issue). But the arguement to that would be that no one is without sin except Jesus, right?

If someone is not leading a moral life WITH the teachings of the Bible, than what is the point of using it as a moral compass to begin with? I guess what I'm saying is that it's not all that effective, and that if someone truly wants to lead a life of good morals they have to venture out beyond the Bible and do it on their own. An Atheist can lead just as moral a life as a Christian can.
Theoretically, more so.

Depends on the moral code you choose to use as a baseline.

[ignorant]

Theoretically, more so.

Depends on the moral code you choose to use as a baseline.

I really think this forum needs to be renamed "Philosophy" instead of "Religion"

I am not a practicing Catholic, but I base most of my beliefs on what I was raised on and branched off based on what I gained through life and what I have gained from read other's beliefs.

I do think that most children, from the start need to have some kinda system instilled in them, be it from attending Sunday School or praying to the Hypnotoad from the beginning of their life. It is a good way to raise a child. After they gain the ability to, I think each person should be able to believe what they want.

It is easier to explain to a child when they have an understanding of where our basic laws and beliefs came from.

Howver, you could throw it all out and give them the "Do onto others as you would want done onto you" and let it flow, but that started as a religious belief and still is.

[domenick2x]

I really think this forum needs to be renamed "Philosophy" instead of "Religion"

I am not a practicing Catholic, but I base most of my beliefs on what I was raised on and branched off based on what I gained through life and what I have gained from read other's beliefs.

I do think that most children, from the start need to have some kinda system instilled in them, be it from attending Sunday School or praying to the Hypnotoad from the beginning of their life. It is a good way to raise a child. After they gain the ability to, I think each person should be able to believe what they want.

It is easier to explain to a child when they have an understanding of where our basic laws and beliefs came from.

Howver, you could throw it all out and give them the "Do onto others as you would want done onto you" and let it flow, but that started as a religious belief and still is.

I disagree with the bolded statement.

Such a system is not needed. Parents could simply lay out a moral code, empty of religious references, and teach the kids thusly.

However, most people do it the way you describe - mostly out of comfort/convenience (or being true believers).

[ignorant]

I disagree with the bolded statement.

Such a system is not needed. Parents could simply lay out a moral code, empty of religious references, and teach the kids thusly.

However, most people do it the way you describe - mostly out of comfort/convenience (or being true believers).

like having them believe in Santa Clause.

[residenceevil]

What does the jolly fat guy have to do with it?

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

As a Christian, if you had empirical evidence that proves God does not exist, would you release it? I'd pull a Karl Rove and leak the info to some idiot MSM network/channel- MSDNC's been ripe enough to believe almost anything these days- then point to them as the anti-Christ when they spill the beans...then i'd form a church, make money pointing a finger at MSDNC and gazillions more producing Kirk Cameron movies for the Christian community.

God works in mysterious ways.
:D

[giddyup4]

I'd pull a Karl Rove and leak the info to some idiot MSM network/channel- MSDNC's been ripe enough to believe almost anything these days- then point to them as the anti-Christ when they spill the beans...then i'd form a church, make money pointing a finger at MSDNC and gazillions more producing Kirk Cameron movies for the Christian community.

God works in mysterious ways.
:D

You are one bitter dude.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

You are one bitter dude. How so??

[giddyup4]

How so??

I havent read all your posts but the ones i've read you come across as someone who has been done wrong to. I realize you sway towards the right and you blame the "liberal media" for everything that hasnt gone your way but you make it sound like the only reason the left is in office is because of them. There are alot of stupid people out there but there are level headed people also. Not everyone basis their decision on what MSNBC says.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I havent read all your posts but the ones i've read you come across as someone who has been done wrong to. I realize you sway towards the right and you blame the "liberal media" for everything that hasnt gone your way but you make it sound like the only reason the left is in office is because of them. There are alot of stupid people out there but there are level headed people also. Not everyone basis their decision on what MSNBC says.There's an amount of humor that you're missing when you read my post on this thread.

...and no, i've never seen a Kirk Cameron movie nor do i care to.
;)

[Hotpapa666]

There's an amount of humor that you're missing when you read my post on this thread.

...and no, i've never seen a Kirk Cameron movie nor do i care to.
;)

You've said the same thing to me. Maybe you aren't as funny as you think you are....

[LSU]

You've said the same thing to me. Maybe you aren't as funny as you think you are....


here I thought I was the only one that noticed.

No, that's a lie. I knew I wasn't the only one.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

You've said the same thing to me. Maybe you aren't as funny as you think you are.... ....or maybe you take whatever i post waaay too seriously as this other guy did.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

here I thought I was the only one that noticed.

No, that's a lie. I knew I wasn't the only one. Coming from the guy who absolutely would not let the 'fratter' shit die, that's a hoot.

You followed me over two completely different websites/boards, various threads, and absolutely would not let it go.

Now you're back here stirring shit up again. Gimme a break.
:rolleyes:

[LSU]

Coming from the guy who absolutely would not let the 'fratter' shit die, that's a hoot.

You followed me over two completely different websites/boards, various threads, and absolutely would not let it go.

Now you're back here stirring shit up again. Gimme a break.
:rolleyes:



Who's not letting the "fratter" shit die?

As for "the other site", I'm trying to think of who it was that posted something about Animal House, and then said gee, I wonder when LSU is going to jump on this.

Any idea of who that was? Kinda hard to let something go when it's thrown right at you. Kinda like... here.

You're being kinda funny right now. But it's not intentional, so that doesn't count.

http://www.wackypackages.org/realproductsscans/2004/jk/kitkat_small.jpg

[Hotpapa666]

Well done LSU.

What they hell are you guys doing up?

[LSU]

Well done LSU.

What they hell are you guys doing up?


I'm doing whole cell lysates for 2D gel electrophoresis. Just about to aliquot, freeze, and head out.

[Hotpapa666]

I'm doing whole cell lysates for 2D gel electrophoresis. Just about to aliquot, freeze, and head out.

I see. Have fun. I miss being in lab late at night, all by myself. Having a beer, blasting music. Good times.

[LSU]

I see. Have fun. I miss being in lab late at night, all by myself. Having a beer, blasting music. Good times.


I'm beginning to be ready to miss it. This is the 5th night I've been in the lab until 2+ am. It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have to get up a 7:30 with the kid.

I'm labelling tubes and fucking up left and right. Need sleep.

Or coffee.

[Hotpapa666]

I'm beginning to be ready to miss it. This is the 5th night I've been in the lab until 2+ am. It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have to get up a 7:30 with the kid.

I'm labelling tubes and fucking up left and right. Need sleep.

Or coffee.

I've had at least 2 bosses look at my tubes, shake their heads and say "as long as you can read them," to me. Chicken scratch, Ms. Selmer, my third grade teacher called it.

Enjoy your night. I'm off to a Baby shower with a giant bottle of Sake.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Who's not letting the "fratter" shit die?

As for "the other site", I'm trying to think of who it was that posted something about Animal House... I answered YOM's question and *knew* danged well that you'd be all over anything 'fratter' like you are now. ;)

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Well done LSU.

What they hell are you guys doing up? I'm on the West coast...it's only 12:00 AM...and I'm a night owl (who normally wouldn't be responding to anything here but for LSU's man-love for me).

I'm watching Fox's 'Red Eye', BTW if we're keeping track of who's doing what when.

[LSU]

I answered YOM's question and *knew* danged well that you'd be all over anything 'fratter' like you are now. ;)



Oh, so you were baiting.

Such a master.

And know that when it comes to man love, Ryr is always first.

You get sloppy seconds.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

Oh, so you were baiting.

Such a master.

And know that when it comes to man love, Ryr is always first.

You get sloppy seconds. Excellent, considering where RYR is on the totem-pole here and where i'm at. :)

And no, i wasn't baiting you. Remind me...how many threads- across how many boards- did you seek me out?????

But now that you're finally discussing things openly, how is it that you'd take my compliment of your thread and seek to bitch-slap me for pretty much saying that i'd do what *you* admitted you'd do???
(namely, protect a vision of 'God' that we'd know didn't exist but wanted to keep relevant to the rest of the populous???)

[LSU]

Excellent, considering where RYR is on the totem-pole here and where i'm at. :)

And no, i wasn't baiting you. Remind me...how many threads- across how many boards- did you seek me out?????

But now that you're finally discussing things openly, how is it that you'd take my compliment of your thread and seek to bitch-slap me for pretty much saying that i'd do what *you* admitted you'd do???
(namely, protect a vision of 'God' that we'd know didn't exist but wanted to keep relevant??)


You must have a pretty high opinion of yourself to think that I or anyone else "seeks" you out. I've been posting both here and at sports-boards almost since they were born. If I have something to say, I'll say it.

But again, YOU took the conversation from one board (here) and started it there. But I'M the one that's seeking something?

Don't flatter yourself.


If you consider what I said about that thread a "bitch slap" then you better find a good helmet to wear around here. With a face guard.

I'm not going to cozy up to you if you say you'd do the same thing I'd do. In fact, I don't think I'd cozy up to anyone here for anything. Except jiddy. We're internet buddies, and you can't break that bond.

And don't take that as some tough guy loner spiel. It's not. It's just how it is.

For as much as you've told other people to lighten up and partake in some humor (I can think of three at least, myself, papa, and ashey), you've certainly found yourself struggling oblige in the same respect.

Or maybe you're just a tool.

I haven't figured it out. You're too new yet.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I haven't figured it out. You're too new yet. And that's exactly where you should have left it....that you don't really know me and could have taken my posts a little more personally- or seriously- than they should have been taken.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I'm not going to cozy up to you if you say you'd do the same thing I'd do. In fact, I don't think I'd cozy up to anyone here for anything. Except jiddy. We're internet buddies, and you can't break that bond. Glad to hear.

I wasn't trying to interfere with any previous relationships here.
:rolleyes:

[giddyup4]

....or maybe you take whatever i post waaay too seriously as this other guy did.

I dont think im taking you to seriously. I just calls em' likes i sees em'. You maybe joking to an extent but just about every post i read of yours you're blasting the media like they owed you money. To me, that doesnt sound like someone who is just joking around. It sounds like someone who is pissed off because he didnt get his way. Shit happens.

[LSU]

And that's exactly where you should have left it....that you don't really know me and could have taken my posts a little more personally- or seriously- than they should have been taken.


But you know me perfectly well enough to know when I'm taking posts too seriously or personally.

Duly noted.