Geneza 18 – Hawking si Geneza

25 februarie 2011 de Edmond Constantinescu 209 comentarii

Înregistrat sub Video Tagged with Hawking, Principiul Antropic, Univers

209 Responses to Geneza 18 – Hawking si Geneza

Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:03

Maria tu esti la fel de obiectiva ca soarecele vecinului cand e infometat. Dar spune ce ai gasit tu de cand ai inceput sa judeci biserica AZS de toate relele. Ti-ai gasit pacea sau esti in cautare. L-ai gasit pe Dumnezeu, esti mai fericita? Vorbeste el zilnic cu tine?
Alter Ego says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:05

„de ce continuati, de ce vreti (tineti neaparat) sa fiti in continuare adventisti de ziua a saptea? sa va numiti adventisti? crestini (ucenici ai lui Isus + stiinta moderna) nu va este de ajuns?”

Pentru ca asta este ceea ce cred ei, despre ei ca sunt. E o chestiune de identitate. Au fost crescuti sa creada ca ei sunt niste „pietre de hotar”. Au investit atat de mult sentiment de sine in doctrina pe care o numesc „adevarul prezent”, incat nu pot rezista reflexului de a imparti oamenii in adventisti si restul lumii. Au devenit dependenti de asta, pentru ca asa obtin sentimentul de securitate. Sigur ca e un fals sentiment, sigur ca e un surogat, mai mult chiar, e un drog. Nu se pot multumi cu faptul ca sunt oameni, de altfel nici nu cred ca stiu asta, in adevaratul sens al cuvantului. Dar de ce nu esti ingaduitor cu ei. Fiecare om are ritmul sau. De ce esti disperat pentru situatia lor? Un ton mai potolit i-ar ajuta mai mult, poate, in mod sigur pe tine, da.
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:18

maimuta trista si papagalul vopsit :victory: :dance: :clap: :eat: :fingersxd:
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
„The modern form of a design argument is put forth by Intelligent design. Proponents of intelligent design often cite the fine-tuning observations that (in part) preceded the formulation of the anthropic principle by Carter as a proof of an intelligent designer.”
The question: Does the Anthropic Principle supports an intervening God or any miracles (supernaturalism)?
„Many supporters of supernatural explanations believe that past, present, and future complexities and mysteries of the universe cannot be explained solely by naturalistic means and argue that it is reasonable to assume that a non-natural entity or entities resolve the unexplained. Those who consider only natural explanations to be acceptable in science would support such as explanations as The Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution for the origin of the universe and the origin and development of life. By its own definition, science is incapable of examining or testing for the existence of things that have no physical effects, because its methods rely on the observation of physical effects. Proponents of supernaturalism say that their belief system is more flexible, which allows more diversity in terms of intuition and epistemology. Some opponents argue that many supernatural claims involve physical phenomena that can be tested, but believe that scientific tests to date have failed to uphold the validity of those claims.”

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anthropic+principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#External_links
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/essays/anthropic.html
http://www.skepdic.com/anthropic.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm
http://asktheatheist.com/?tag=anthropic-principle
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning.html
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Untuned.htm
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/super.cfm
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/11_jan_feb/Williams.html
John Polkinghorne versus Victor J. Stenger, for example.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/polkrev.html
and so on.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/fundamental_cosmological_understanding_eludes_us/ :yes:
Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:24

Vaaaaaaaaaai Fiul Junglei iar postezi in limba engleza si zeci de linkuri? Pai noua, aventistilor de ziua a saptea nu ne place sa citim, vrem posturi scurte fara linkuri si numai semnate FRATELE PASTOR! Ptiu drace !
Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:26

Hahahaahaahaa ce tare e primul link hahahahaha LOL !!! :pray: :worship: :pray: :worship: :vampire: :zombiekiller: :soldier: :doctor:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:27

Multumesc, Alter Ego, pentru raspunsul indirect!
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:29

:highfive: Egiptene, sa ne potolim ca ne bate generalul la funduletz. Noi iestem niste clone ateiste inculte. Dementa ateista. 😀
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:39

pentru unii youtube-ul e bun, pentru altii nu.
unii au timp sa vizioneze, altii nu au. selectiv, asa… pai nu? 🙄
daca am formula si noi in „propriile cuvinte” (adica daca am prelua idei de la altii, eventual traducandu-le – ca nu inventam noi nimic, lucrurile si argumentele deja se cunoasc demult), cica ne va baga si pe noi in seama (lol – pai noi nu vrem sa fim bagati in seama si sa ni se raspunda, noi oricum postam asa cum simtim) si ne va raspunde intr-un editorial. gargara ieftina!
ceea ce critica la altii, fac si ei.

la ce bun sa te obosesti sa mai scrii (cuma facut v. marco), cand experienta de mai bine de 3 ani pe siteurile astea ivantiste) ti-a demonstrat ca religiosii nu citesc nimic din ce ai postat despre asta deja acum multa vreme? si nu asta e iritant (ca mi se rupe de comentariile mele idioate – nu ma deranjeaza ca sunt sterse sau ignorate), ci faptul ca nu vor sa gandeasca la ideile in sine… si mai sunt si infatuati nevoie mare in teismul lor „echilibrat”.
da-le dracu de linkuri
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/search?q=anthropic+principle
Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:50

Legat de ultimul link si de http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm tu nu vrei sa intelegi ba FJ ca noi aventistii suntem convinsi ca viata fara carbon nu se exista? Pacat ca nu a vorbit sora alba de asta ca atunci ne faceau o demonstratie QED de mai mare frumusetea pleonastica! 😯 :yawn: :vampire: :zombiekiller: :soldier: :doctor:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:50

The impression of design and purpose in nature is so strong to the human mind.

And geocentricism seems obvious even after you take a look at the evidence, the night sky. Everything seems to be rotating around us. There’s a lovely part in the first series of Wonder’s of the Solar System where Brian Cox is talking about the movement of the stars in the night sky, the line about us being the centre of the universe is brilliant – „It’s obvious, but wrong.„
Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:54

Apropos FJ sa te binecuvinteze RA fiindca mi-am dat seama cum ne vom saluta noi deacum inainte inlocuind cu succes „Pacea Domnului” cu „Dementa ateista”!

Dementa ateista frate FJ! 😀
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 11:58

Egiptene, te pup! Ai dreptate. :hugleft: :hugright:

The Ten Most Influential Books That Debunked Christianity (these authors threatened Christianity to its core)

1) Galileo Galilei, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences (1632 C.E.)

2) Baruch Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise (1675-76 C.E.)

3) Hermann Samuel Reimarus, Fragments (1774-1778 C.E.)

4) David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779 C.E.)

5) David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1835-1836 C.E.)

6) Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (1845 C.E.)

7) Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848 C.E.)

8) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859 C.E.)

9) Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ (1895 C.E.)

10) Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927 C.E.)

Dumnezeu sa ne binecuvanteze pe amandoi, care ieram trei – si cu taticu nostru Samson! :pray: :worship: :pray:
Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 12:02

Draga Edi asociatia Dementa ateista vine cu o intrebare:

What if God was born by the Universe rather than the other way around?
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 12:11

Draga Edi, Asociatia Dementa Ateista Fara Frontiere vine cu o subintrebare:

Which God (Deity) are you (all of you) talking about here?
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 12:32

Vesti bune, frate egiptean! Dumnezeu (dar nu stim care este ala, ca nu mi-e clar) s-a indurat de noi si ne-a dat linkuri in limba materna dementa (nu numai in engleza papagalilor vopsiti)! :victory: Asa putem vorbi si noi in limbi! :ghost:

http://proddit.com/help/faqs/atheism#WhysciencedoesntneedGod
http://lazypawn.com/wordpress/?s=antropic :-*

Dementa ateista, frate Anubis! :handshake:
Nimicul metafizic sa te binecuvanteze cu Legiune :pig: :pig2: . I won’t pray for you.
A(theist)-men!
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 13:02

Important e sa privesti ‘obiectiv” si constructiv la ceea ce-ti descopera fereastra deschisa.
O ‘obiectivitate” in spiritul unei cautari reale ,stiintifice, si nu o “obiectivitate” desantata strigata de filosofi imorali (Ayn Rand) care rastalmacesc adevaruri pentru a le perverti si a le incadra intr-o filosofie care nu are nicio legatura cu “obiectivitatea”.

Cum? „filosofi imorali”? Important e sa privesti ‘obiectiv”?
Am impresia ca pentru asta a fost inventat serialul RObotzi – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvJx_E8E0Rw

Ca de obicei, iubiti frati si stimate surori nu au vizionat clipul. Sa ii ajutam:

Interviewer: You do not accept the existence of a god, a divine prime mover?

Ayn Rand: No.

Interviewer: Now the reason you don’t is because you can’t prove that such an entity or being or energy exists.

Ayn Rand: I can’t nor can anyone else. There is no proof.

Interviewer: There is no proof so therefore you’ve concluded that there isn’t one?

Ayn Rand: That’s right.

Interviewer: You can’t prove there isn’t.

Ayn Rand: You are never called upon to prove a negative. That’s a law of logic.

Interviewer: You have to be impressed with the universe. When you see order in the universe, this wasn’t an accident, Ms. Rand.

Ayn Rand: Oh now you’ve got to give me a few minutes. [laughter] What do you think would happen in a disorderly universe? What is the concept of order? What does it have to do with the things which exist? Do they clash with each other? If there were contradictions they wouldn’t exist. There is no such thing as a disorderly universe. Our whole concept of order comes from observing reality and reality has to be orderly because it’s the standard of what exists.

Interviewer: Right.

Ayn Rand: So contradictions cannot exist.

Interviewer: OK.

Ayn Rand: The real issue as far as man is concerned, is that when you accept such an important issue as the creation of the universe on faith you are destroying your confidence and the validity of your own mind. It has to be either reason or faith. I am against god for the reason that I don’t want to destroy reason. I don’t…

Interviewer: Give us a chance, alright? We appreciate your zeal but if you continue that it’s going to make it difficult for the other people absorb all this, what’s going on here, OK?

Ayn Rand: How can I be against god? I’m against those who conceived that idea.

Interviewer: Tell us why. Tell us why.

Ayn Rand: Because then it gives man permission to function irrationally, to accept something above and outside the power of their reason and superior to reason. You said it, I think unintentionally. You said „so I can’t wait to die and find out.” That, I’m serious, is one of the results of acting on faith. You can’t wait to get out of this life.

Interviewer: And what’s wrong with that?

Ayn Rand: Because this life is wonderful, as you said. Because if you look at the the universe, it’s wonderful and you have to use your life to the best of your understanding. If you go by emotions, not reason, it means you’re going against reality. Something exists, something is right and you say no, I don’t like it because I want to believe something else.

Interviewer: I see.

Ayn Rand: You, in effect, go by emotions, by your whims, not by reason.

Interviewer: I just want to get this in before the break. You’re an atheist?

Ayn Rand: Yes. [noise] [laughter] I could do the same to you, you know. [laughter] [applause] So you’re the host I won’t say it, but, in other circumstances I would say I don’t agree with religion. I approve of your right to it, but…

Interviewer: You don’t approve of religion because?

Ayn Rand: Because it’s mystical. Because it’s based on faith, not on reason and facts.

Interviewer: So? So for you but not for others, OK. What do you care? Somebody wants to worship a Christmas tree or a telephone pole, that’s their business.

Ayn Rand: I respect that legally. I said that everyone has the right to believe anything they want but I don't have to approve. If they are serious, I would say... [noise] [laughter] You know? But I would never pass any laws to stop them.

Interviewer: You’ve got to allow that you’re not smart enough to know whether or not there’s a god.

Ayn Rand: Yes. I am and everybody here is.

Interviewer: Is what?

Ayn Rand: Smart enough. It doesn’t take much intelligence. Do you know why?

Interviewer: Why?

Ayn Rand: Because you are not called upon, I cannot be called upon to know a negative or to prove a negative. If there is a god and you prove it, that’s fine. But you don’t tell me you can’t know that there isn’t. I would say yes I know there isn’t because I have been given no evidence.

Interviewer: I think atheists are as arrogant as many of the so-called Christians or relgionists that you defy. I’m saying…

Ayn Rand: Arrogant in what way?

Interviewer: In that you are here with your certainty saying there is no god and anybody who believes there is is… It’s almost a suggestion that you believe that you are foolish if you believe there is and I think that’s a little arrogant and condescending.

Ayn Rand: No. The arrogance and foolishness… I would have to tell the truth. I think it’s a bad sign psychologically. It is a sign of a psychological weakness, a man who is afraid to stand on his own mind and has no responsibility. Because it is the absence of proof that brings on false thinkers. Every argument for the existence of god is incomplete, improper and has been refuted and people go on and on because they want to believe. Well, I regard it as evil to place your emotions, your desire above the evidence of what your mind knows.

Interviewer: OK.

Ayn Rand: But that’s what you’re doing with the idea of god, speaking philosophically.

Interviewer: True.

Ayn Rand: You say you need someone to explain the order but now you have to explain that. You have to take what exists as a fact and start with what exists and see how much you can learn about it.

But it is not right. It is not proper to man to take anything on faith. Religion is a matter of faith. You accept a religion emotionally or because you were born to it. You have not chosen it rationally.

Interviewer: I tend to think of this whole thing as ongoing, that there is an eternity and that we are going to be part of that eternity, that we aren’t just corpses in graves when we die.

Ayn Rand: But we aren’t corpses in graves, we are not dead. Don’t you understand that when this life is finished, you’re not there to say oh how terrible that I’m a corpse? No.

Interviewer: Well this is true.

Ayn Rand: It’s finished. And what I’ve always thought was a sentence from some Greek philosopher, I don’t unfortunately remember who it was, but I read it at 16 and it has affected me all my life. I will not die. It’s the world that will end. [silence] …

__________________________________

„I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 13:11

Ai retinut, frate egiptean, fraza asta?

„Because you are not called upon, I cannot be called upon to know a negative or to prove a negative. If there is a god and you prove it, that’s fine. But you don’t tell me you can’t know that there isn’t. I would say yes I know there isn’t because I have been given no evidence.”

Man, that was a intelligent woman!
Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 13:33

Poe’s Law states: “ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing. ”

Poe’s Law, stated more formally, says that a sufficiently fantastical religious idea is indistinguishable from nonsense, therefore it is impossible to know for sure if someone promoting those views is crazy or merely performing a parody. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he’s a „deep cover liberal” trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.

Dementa ateista frate FJ!
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 14:26

The Essence of Christianity by Ludwig Feuerbach (Translated from the original German by George Eliot)
download:

Dă clic pentru a accesa essence8.pdf

read it online:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
read it online:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html
among others
– How Religion in The United States Avails itself of Democratic Tendencies.
– That the Americans Apply the Principle of Self-interest Rightly Understood to Religions Matters.
– How Religious Belief Sometimes Turns Americans to Immaterial Pleasures.

History of the Conflict between Religion and Science by John William Draper :yes:
download
http://manybooks.net/titles/draperjoetext98hcbrs10.html
read it online
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/drapertoc.htm

___________________________________
for „iubiti frati si stimate surori” only
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/onlinebooks.html
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 14:32

But Greek intellectual development, due thus in part to a more extended view of Nature, was powerfully aided by the knowledge then acquired of the religion of the conquered country. The idolatry of Greece had always been a horror to Persia, who, in her invasions, had never failed to destroy the temples and insult the fanes of the bestial gods. The impunity with which these sacrileges had been perpetrated had made a profound impression, and did no little to undermine Hellenic faith. But now the worshiper of the vile Olympian divinities, whose obscene lives must have been shocking to every pious man, was brought in contact with a grand, a solemn, a consistent religious system, having its foundation on a philosophical basis. Persia, as is the case with all empires of long duration, had passed through many changes of religion. She had followed the Monotheism of Zoroaster; had then accepted Dualism, and exchanged that for Magianism. At the time of the Macedonian expedition, she recognized one universal Intelligence, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, the most holy essence of truth, the giver of all good. He was not to be represented by any image, or any graven form. And, since, in every thing here below, we see the resultant of two opposing forces, under him were two coequal and coeternal principles, represented by the imagery of Light and Darkness. These principles are in never-ending conflict. The world is their battle-ground, man is their prize.

In the old legends of Dualism, the Evil Spirit was said to have sent a serpent to ruin the paradise which the Good Spirit had made. These legends became known to the Jews during their Babylonian captivity.

The existence of a principle of evil is the necessary incident of the existence of a principle of good, as a shadow is the necessary incident of the presence of light. In this manner could be explained the occurrence of evil in a world, the maker and ruler of which is supremely good. Each of the personified principles of light and darkness, Ormuzd and Ahriman, had his subordinate angels, his counselors, his armies. It is the duty of a good man to cultivate truth, purity, and industry. He may look forward, when this life is over, to a life in another world, and trust to a resurrection of the body, the immortality of the soul, and a conscious future existence.

We must bear in mind that the majority of men are imperfectly educated, and hence we must not needlessly offend the religious ideas of our age. It is enough for us ourselves to know that, though there is a Supreme Power, there is no Supreme Being. There is an invisible principle, but not a personal God, to whom it would be not so much blasphemy as absurdity to impute the form, the sentiments, the passions of man. All revelation is, necessarily, a mere fiction. That which men call chance is only the effect of an unknown cause. Even of chances there is a law. There is no such thing as Providence, for Nature proceeds under irresistible laws, and in this respect the universe is only a vast automatic engine. The vital force which pervades the world is what the illiterate call God. The modifications through which all things are running take place in an irresistible way, and hence it may be said that the progress of the world is, under Destiny, like a seed, it can evolve only in a predetermined mode.

The soul of man is a spark of the vital flame, the general vital principle. Like heat, it passes from one to another, and is finally reabsorbed or reunited in the universal principle from which it came. Hence we must not expect annihilation, but reunion; and, as the tired man looks forward to the insensibility of sleep, so the philosopher, weary of the world, should look forward to the tranquillity of extinction. Of these things, however, we should think doubtingly, since the mind can produce no certain knowledge from its internal resources alone. It is unphilosophical to inquire into first causes; we must deal only with phenomena. Above all, we must never forget that man cannot ascertain absolute truth, and that the final result of human inquiry into the matter is, that we are incapable of perfect knowledge; that, even if the truth be in our possession, we cannot be sure of it.

What, then, remains for us? Is it not this – the acquisition of knowledge, the cultivation of virtue and of friendship, the observance of faith and truth, an unrepining submission to whatever befalls us, a life led in accordance with reason?

Chapter I – http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/draper01.htm
Un strain says:

27 februarie 2011 la 14:34

Louie Giglio from Crestin Informat on Vimeo.
maria says:

27 februarie 2011 la 14:44

O noua zeita a ratiunii obiective, Ayn Rand !
Pfffff !
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 14:47

Alo, Adam Nicolae, inceteaza sa mai folosesti embedded clips aici, fundamentalistule! :monkey2: Formatul comentariilor nu accepta decat format HTML (si in ala cateva tag-uri doar)
Am inteles odata… http://vimeo.com/7688776
E de ajuns un link catre acel videoclip de propaganda specific creationista, folosindu-se de apelul la emotii.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Giglio
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 14:51

Pfffff !

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Nu credeam c-o s-o aud pe roboata lu’ dumneZeu sa pronunte cuvantul asta!
Pocaieste-te, amarato, si da slava lu’ dumneZeu!
Si dupa aia, sa te informezi inainte sa vorbesti despre ceva ce nu ai habar!
Inculta dracu’ cu pretentii de mare critica a tuturor ideilor noastre ateiste! :kissing:

mare proasta mai esti! :cow:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 14:53

O noua zeita a ratiunii obiective, Ellen G. White!
Pfffff!

Un nou zeu al ratiunii obiective, Isus Hristos!
Pfffff!
Anubis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:02

FJ te rog sa nu te mai iei de roboata lui Dumnezeu ca in felul asta o faci sa creada ca e martira pentru o cauza nobila. Si dupa cum stim martirii nu renunta usor pana nu fac boooom! :chic: 😛 :rotfl: :silly: :ghost: :vampire: :zombiekiller: :sheep2: :doctor:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:09

http://vimeo.com/7688776 :yawn: :yawn:

http://www.godtube.com/search/?q=Louie+Giglio || http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/molecular_biology_for_babbling.php
AND http://www.snopes.com/glurge/laminin.asp
http://recoveringfundamentalists.com/the-laminin-protein.html

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.

Circular reasoning (circular logic) is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

Because the Bible tells us so. :pray: :worship: :pray:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:12

o faci sa creada ca e martira pentru o cauza nobila

adevar grait-ai, egyptian master! 😯
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:21

Lee Strobel + Louie Giglio + Ben Stein = LOSERS :loser: :smug:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:27

Ben Stein has publicly denounced the theory of evolution, which he and other intelligent design advocates call „Darwinism”, declaring it to be „a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies,” „the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism,” and the inspiration for the Holocaust. Stein does not say belief in the theory of evolution alone leads to genocide, but that scientific materialism is a necessary component. He co-wrote and stars in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a film that aims to persuade viewers that the theory of evolution was instrumental to the rise of the eugenics movement, Nazi Germany, and the Holocaust, and portrays advocates of intelligent design as victims of intellectual discrimination by the scientific community, which has rejected intelligent design as CREATIONIST PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Stein: „…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.„
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Stein#Views_on_evolution_and_science

Jesus Christ! :doh: :doh:
leo says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:42

edi

intodeauna vor exista oameni ce vor voi carti de colorat!
domnul va hotari in privinta lor!
dar din pacate ,de cele mai multe ori ei vor hotari in privinta mea aici, in biserica!
va mai fi oare biserica adv. ce a fost odata?
lupta continua…
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:55

intodeauna vor exista oameni ce vor voi carti de colorat!

se numesc credinciosi religiosi – churchgoing people

domnul va hotari in privinta lor!

domnule, daca va rugam noi mult, ne comunicati si noua despre ce „domn” vorbiti dvs. aici?

dar din pacate ,de cele mai multe ori ei vor hotari in privinta mea aici, in biserica!

aoleu, alt ivantist frustrat la el in biserica azs din ro! „din pacate”.

va mai fi oare biserica adv. ce a fost odata?

nici gand! odata virginitatea pierduta, adio copilarie! toate virginile se transforma in curve calare pe fiara cu sapte capete, in ziua a saptea. :devil:

lupta continua…

da, asa e. „din pacate, Marea Lupta continua sa fie tiparita si vanduta pe piata, ca fiind adevarul revelat din spatele cortinei. domnul „X” va hotari in privinta acelora care o publica si inseala oamenii moderni cu basme evreiesti si… white-esti!
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 15:57

domnule leo, dar cine va tine domnule acolo in biserica aia? de ce nu plecati si va eliberati din tirania religiei? dumnezeu va va iubi oricum.
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 16:02

aaaa, am inteles. daca edi este aventist, si admiratorii lui tre’ sa fie aventisti. ieste un iegzemplu de urmat in toate.
nu vrea, dle, sa va elibereze deloc domnu pastoru asta! cu gura zice „AZS este calea…”, iar cu inima spune „plecati din biserica, nu recomand niciunui om inteligent sa intre acolo sub manipularile smecherilor aia”. de-asta ieste doublethinking si se supara jungla pe iel. ca ii tine in tensiune si intr-o continua duplicitate psihica pe cei cu adevarat sceptici si capabili intelectuali. tre’ sa taie cordonul ombilical si sa fie ferm atunci cand le spune in fatza adevarul (cu a mic).
iel se multumeste ca oamenii sa citeasca printre randuri, ca sa nu-l acuze fundamentalistii si sa-i produca demisia.
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 16:07

domnu leo, domnu leo, edi nu mai e aventist decat cu numele. iel ie agnostic ateist. mergeti in pace! credinta dvs. dilematica v-a vindecat.
Un strain says:

27 februarie 2011 la 16:13

Am adus video-ul cu Louie Giglio ,cu speranta ca au mai ramas pe aici oameni(fiinte umane) care au ratiune si sentimente(adica mai mult decat simtul alcoolului si al sexului,instincte animale).

M-am inselat,cum ar putea jungla sa inteleaga asa ceva?
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 16:20

Am adus video-ul cu speranta ca au mai ramas pe aici oameni care…

Pai si atunci, de ce te superi/necajesti?
Toata lumea face la fel. Tu ai libertatea sa crezi ce vrei, eu am libertatea sa fac misto de credinta ta… si tu la randul tau de a mea, altul de a altuia.
Care e problema?
Va jeneaza injuraturile? Si pe noi ne jeneaza jargonul religios stereotip. Pe altii ii deranjeaza altceva. Si tot asa.
Ce dracu, bre? Parca n-ati fi invatat regula reciprocitatii de la Isus, zau asa?!
Incepeti s-o si aplicati.

don’t cry for me, argentina. :-* :monkey2:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 16:22

apropo, din cate am inteles io printre randuri de la fidel sarcastic – se pare ca te cunoaste (sau i se pare ca te cunoaste) si ca te-ar fi identificat prin aparitiile la vreo emisiune la O&P.

cin’ sa fie, cin’ sa fie first monkey? ?:-)
vreun pui de pastoras azs?
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 17:28

Unchiu’ Grigorie iar s-a imbatat si s-a apucat sa injure cocosii, ce pana lui!

Predestinarea cocoșului

Dacă n-ați înțeles nimic din demonstrație, nu-i bai, e foarte bine, înseamnă că sunteți pe calea cea bună – Calea catre Hristos. La timpul V3.
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 18:15

Bai maimutoilor, sa nu uitati sa vizionati documentarul „Terra: Nașterea unei planete” asta seara de la ora 21:00 pe National Geographic.
http://natgeotv.com/ro/terra-nasterea-unei-planete/despre

Titlul original in lb. engleza – Earth: Making of a Planet
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/earth-making-of-a-planet-4920/Overview

uite si pe youtube:
maria says:

27 februarie 2011 la 18:58

Frati ateisti,
Am deschis acum calculatorul si am ramas profund surprinsa de aprecierile primite.
Probabil consecinta eticii randiene, atat de apreciate si de maestrul Anton Lavey.
Apreciez izomorfismul la care ati ajuns, persoane cu aceiasi gandire, aceleasi tropisme intelectuale, aceleasi automatisme, scheme psihice, truisme, mentalitati si paradigme, o singura substanta amorfa nedespartita.
Frate Anubius, transplantul de cap va face sa detectati sobolani ?
Nu-i nimic, nu va speriati !
E doar „alter egoul ” care va desparte !
cmon says:

27 februarie 2011 la 19:05

Betelgeux #38: Excelent comentariu! Foarte concis formulat ceva ce ma straduiam sa-i explic cu alt prilej lui Sertorius.
eddieconst says:

27 februarie 2011 la 19:17

FJ:

nu vrea, dle, sa va elibereze deloc domnu pastoru asta! cu gura zice “AZS este calea…”, iar cu inima spune “plecati din biserica, nu recomand niciunui om inteligent sa intre acolo sub manipularile smecherilor aia”. de-asta ieste doublethinking si se supara jungla pe iel. ca ii tine in tensiune si intr-o continua duplicitate psihica pe cei cu adevarat sceptici si capabili intelectuali. tre’ sa taie cordonul ombilical si sa fie ferm atunci cand le spune in fatza adevarul (cu a mic).
iel se multumeste ca oamenii sa citeasca printre randuri, ca sa nu-l acuze fundamentalistii si sa-i produca demisia.

Daca FJ nu ar exista at trebuii inventat…

citat din raportul secret al Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei despre O2.

Continuare:

La fel ca noi, FJ sustine ca nu exista o alta optiune intre fundamentalism idiocratic religios si fundamentalism idiocratic ateist. FJ demonstreaza teza noastra ca orice indepartare de autoritarainismul rigid al bisericii te transforma intr-un sociopat verbal si degenerat sexual.
Este convenient pentru fratii si parintii din Congrgatie sa se contrazica cu FJ in loc de EC, intrucat FJ pozeaza cu dibacie in aparator al lui EC dar foloseste un limbaj care dezgusta pe orice om cu bun simt. Impresia ca joaca in tandem cu EC este o splendida strategie care a reusit chiar si cu unii din cei scoliti de noi, cum este Marius Andy, care cred ca FJ este parte din familie.
FJ este un troll care prin obscenitati si flooding demonstreaza intelepicunea Congregatiei atunci cand foloseste cenzura.
FJ este o dovada ca sustragerea de la controlul mintii de catre Congregatie duce la dezordine mentala cronica.
FJ a facut mult mai simpla sarcina noastra de a streotipiza imaginea O2.

Felicitam pe parintele… care cu multa dibagie a folosit orientarea sexuala comuna cu FJ pentru a-l racola ca agent al nostru.

Semnat Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei aka Sfanta Inchizitie a fundamentalismului idiocratic.
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 19:20

😀 😀 😀 😀
o meritam. eu ma asteptam sa ma injuri. sarut-mana, edi! :handshake:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 19:26

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
nebun mai esti! bre, sper ca nu esti suparat cu adevarat cand scrii aceste randuri, da?

Sfanta Inchizitie a fundamentalismului idiocratic

foarte tare, frate! i love it. :yes:
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 19:28

hai ca ma duc sa ma uit la documentarul ala pe natgeo.
vin mai incolo. nu-l mai stresez pe edi (deocamdata).
flori says:

27 februarie 2011 la 20:21

FJ vrea sa distruga O2. Cred ca toti cei care au citit „comentariile” lui isi dau seama de acest lucru.
faithless jungle says:

27 februarie 2011 la 20:31

FJ vrea sa distruga O2.

LOL :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
paranoia capata proportii apocaliptice!
cum dracu ii ziceau astia, ma? am uitat… apostazia omega sau ceva de genu’… :silly:
ianis says:

27 februarie 2011 la 20:39

flori
nu te mai osteni, omul e dus cu pluta. Nici macar dupa ce edi i-a zis clar cum stau lucrurile, el nu „s-a prins”
Nu merita decat vot negativ si ignorare.

P.S.
Anubis si CJ: pentru discutii personale va astept pe chat.
ediorgu says:

27 februarie 2011 la 21:15

Exprimarea lui FJ poate fi scaparea unora – cand nu ai argumente e mai usor sa zici ca te retragi din cauza limbajului. Ma enervezeaza ca trebuie sa citesc o gramada de mizerii ca sa dau peste cate ceva interesant, dar o fac pentru ca am vazut ca omul stie ce spune in general. Voi nu vedeti ca atunci cand cineva vine cu argumente serioase omul isi schimba tonul?
Asta nu inseamna ca-l incurajez s-o tina tot asa. Dar cei ce au pretentia ca argumenteaza ceva cand de fapt nu prea au habar despre ce vorbesc, stiu bine la ce pot sa se astepte.
Edi, nota 10 pentru eleganta cu care gestionezi situatia pe site!