ModernRousseau's forum posts

  • 20 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="ModernRousseau"]The only person making a groundless claim is you. So, to make yourself seem like less of a fool, you should list some of the observations and claims you're talking about.br0kenrabbit

Evolution.

It's been observed in the lab, it's been recorded in the fossil record, but still the religious nut-jobs scream "I didn't come from no monkey!"

And then there's human chromosome 2.

Hey, here's a question I keep asking that nobody will answer: How many stalls for chariot horses did Solomen have? 1 Kings 4:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 9:25

I believe in evolution, and I'm religious. I don't know what Human Chromosome 2 is. I'll look into it. 1 Kings 4:26 says: Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. 2 Chronicles 9:25 says: Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for "horses and chariots". Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="GreekGameManiac"]

I say both sides are brainwashed,thickheaded,and stupid.

:)

^_^

br0kenrabbit

Science uses observation to back up its claims.

Religion denies the observed and makes groundless claims.

Guess who I'm with?

The only person making a groundless claim is you. So, to make yourself seem like less of a fool, you should list some of the observations and claims you're talking about.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts
None of those poll options apply to me. More importantly, assuming there is a god, there can only either be one or several who work together. The reason there is one for each religion is that his personality is different according to each religion. The God of Christianity is a much more personal God than the God of Islam--that's the major difference. And both religions say the other is false, and are incompatible with each other, which means it's not that its one God who supports two religions. As for all the polytheistic religions, they also are incompatible with Christianity--again, Christianity says there is only one, which means they're incompatible. They're different options.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="GreekGameManiac"]

[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Even religious people believe in science you dolt.

GOGOGOGURT

Do they?

Sure. Gravity and General Relativity and Chemical bonds and elements and cells and the study of life. Everyone has to believe in that. You mean evolution I guess. Well I don't think evolution holds up but say it did happen, well that doesn't mean there isn't a GOD. Maybe he used evolution, or created evolution. We really don't know.

This is a very good point. Evolution doesn't disprove God. God could have used evolution to create humans.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts
Science and religion don't interfere with each other. Religion deals with questions like how should we live? what is virtuous? what is good? why is it that certain physical laws are in place? Is there anything beyond this world? Is there eternity? Science deals with the things that we see and touch. It deals with the natural laws that are in place here on earth, and it seeks to discover what those laws are. (note: the religious don't ignore the fact that these laws exist--they acknowledge their existence, and attribute their existence to God). It doesn't even ever try to answer the questions of why physical laws are in place--it just explains that they are in place. They're answering different questions and are in no way incompatible. They actually go along with each other very well, and the first scientists were all religious. Today, there are many scientists who are religious.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]I agree science gets proven wrong all the time too. worlock77

Science extends an invitation to be proven wrong. Religion insists that it cannot be wrong, cannot be proven wrong, and denounces anyone who says otherwise.

You don't know religion. You think you know it, but you haven't actually gone out and talked to theologians yourself have you? Theologians do not insist that they can't be wrong. They consider that possibility all the time--literally, all the time, they come to a rational conclusion that they're not, and so they continue believing. They don't immediately denounce those who say otherwise any more than die-hard atheists do.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts
And I know many guys who wouldn't high five you.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts
Well, no, to be honest, I didn't change my mind. I can't consciously write as if I'm Rousseau, even if it is just trolling. If you have sex with her, you'll have a decent moment of pleasure. And then what? Your pleasure will be gone, and you'll be left craving more, and your cravings will never be satisfied. And then what? That moment of pleasure won't add anything to your life. You seek pleasure, but through sex you'll never be able to grasp it for long. It will always slip out of your hands and disappear. You'll never have it by that sort of life. That sort of life doesn't bring you to true happiness, it does not satisfy the longing in your soul. Because of that, seeking pleasure through seeking sex is meaningless. It won't satisfy you, it will only fool you into thinking that you have happiness, and if you believe its deceit, you will be harmed.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts
Well, I realized I should be true to my name, so I changed my opinion. I, Rousseau, think we should abandon marriage, and dating for that matter. It's not natural. In fact, living in community isn't naturally either. We should just go around having sex like animals, just like in our original state of nature.
Avatar image for ModernRousseau
ModernRousseau

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 ModernRousseau
Member since 2013 • 25 Posts
you're right. He didn't say anything about marrying.
  • 20 results
  • 1
  • 2