c_james
Viva La Merchandise!
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2004
- Messages
- 512
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
You haven't used any 'scientific theory'. You've used nonsense and pseudo-scientific jargon. Like I said, if I thought there was something to refute, I would've done it a fair while ago. But because it's pretty clear you don't pay much attention to anything that isn't written in a 1300-year-old book, I'll spell out for you what an 8-year-old could deduce.sam04u said:I think once again you're misguided, my little dim-witted buddy.
I used scientific theory to prove my belief about a 'God' a 'Deity' if you would like. If you would like to disprove it then go ahead, but as of now it is to my understanding that the first law of our universe which was energy was created by a supernatural entity. (disprove me).
What you're basically saying is that because science can't provide complete answers about what happened billions of years ago, religion must be correct. But this is flawed. The mere fact that science doesn't provide all the answers doesn't preclude the fact that it provides a far more convincing version of events than your religion, which is filled with superstition and, for lack of a better word, crap. Even if science doesn't provide all the answers, you still have to contend with the fact that there is no possible way of knowing whether the religion you follow is correct. Fuck, you might as well worship the sun, like Carlin says. You can see it. It provides you with direct benefits like food and the conditions necessary for life. It never asks you for money, which is more than I can say for the Catholic Church, perhaps one of the most corrupt organisations in history. The worst it does is give people melanoma. I'll take that over your brand of religious fundamentalism any day.
Last edited: