RIP FAT TONE....Murder Dog Scan.

[SFWOOD]

@alkohol, im a scientist homeboy, and i base my life on evidence. i dont belive in god nor vampires nor werewolves. they are all in the smae class to me, if you believe in the its faith based rather than empiracally based, and thats fine if you choose to do that, but its not for me. and as for the cockroaches argument, unless you believe that life originated multiple times, or dont belive in evolution *shudder* it followes logically that all life is related, us and cockroaches included. but were all grown men, so as ive said before what yuou choose to believe is up to you, and although it sounds like we disagree thats ok too.

you are right... all life is related

however... Epigenetics, Quantum Physics all point to a source of life... ie. God, Allah or whatever you want to call it

for a scientist today to say there is no God, is the same as saying the earth is flat

read Bruce Lipton's Biology of Belief

 

[Ne Obliviscaris]

well i do neuroscience not physiscs, but ive read a fair amount of popular quantum mechanics, and ive got a couple fiarly good friends that are physicists and neither i nor, more importantly, they feel that theres anything pointing towrds a god in the literature. i think youd be hard pressed to find a reputable physicist who would say there was. And theres certainly nothing in genetics (which i happen to know a little bit about) that points towords a god, im sure ther are dozens if not hundreds of books (i assume the one you referenced is one of them) that will lay out an argument for why some aspect of science demonstrates the existence of god, but if you ask the top people in whatever field is being used to 'prove' god exists what their opinions are, they dont think too highly of these theories. like i said to alkohol, your belifs are yours to choose, but dont try to defend them with faulty psudo-science. religion is by definition a faith based belief, not a scientific endevor.

 

[28g w/o the bag]

the nature of the conversation depicted in the last 5 or 6 posts in this threads belongs in the GOM forum.

 

[Ne Obliviscaris]

^^^perhaps yopur right but its a good conversation and it follows from the fat tone death... kinda

 

[ReD_CaFe]

i dont miss that nigga he killed mac dre the legand.. R.I.P. Mac Dre

let dat nigga rest in peace homie. fuck all the bullshit.

 

[bayGIANTS]

well i do neuroscience not physiscs, but ive read a fair amount of popular quantum mechanics, and ive got a couple fiarly good friends that are physicists and neither i nor, more importantly, they feel that theres anything pointing towrds a god in the literature. i think youd be hard pressed to find a reputable physicist who would say there was. And theres certainly nothing in genetics (which i happen to know a little bit about) that points towords a god, im sure ther are dozens if not hundreds of books (i assume the one you referenced is one of them) that will lay out an argument for why some aspect of science demonstrates the existence of god, but if you ask the top people in whatever field is being used to 'prove' god exists what their opinions are, they dont think too highly of these theories. like i said to alkohol, your belifs are yours to choose, but dont try to defend them with faulty psudo-science. religion is by definition a faith based belief, not a scientific endevor.

didnt you hear about how one of the worlds most respected atheists who strongly believes in evolution, just conceded that there has to be some sort of supreme power who contributed to the creation of all existence. You might not be able to prove it, but you also cannot disprove it.

 

[Ne Obliviscaris]

nope didnt hear about it.

and asa far as disproving something, its patently impossible. thats why i, and most cats ,go by proof rather than disproof. i might not be able to disprove gods existance but who cares, i also cant disprove that my german shephard is an alien, but im not trying to build him a space ship. so if you want to believe in god, belive in ghosts and goblins and all that shit too, because the distinction is in your mind.

 

[bayGIANTS]

yes it is harder to disprove something than it is to prove it, but you dont just ignore the other side because of it. Scientists would not be respected and believed if they did not go out of their way to disprove everything that they attempt to prove. There are many scientists who do nothing but disprove what others "prove". If you call yourself a scientist and dont attempt to look at things from all angles, you sure arent gonna last very long in that profession.

here is an article on antony flew, the athiest who became a thiest:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

 

[Ne Obliviscaris]

bayGiant, one cat converting does little to change my beliefs. and although you are corect that what one tries to do is find evidence to show that ones theory is incorrect, that is an attempt to demostrate its feasability by the lack of contradictory evidence, not an attempt to prove somethings non-existance. very differnect concpets. i can roll out as much evidence as youd like that there is no god, but its not proof of his non-existance. and by the way holmes examinging things from all angles doesnt mean believing all opinions.

 

[Walkin]

when science is proven wrong its usually by way of science. its not too often that a theology proves science wrong.

 

[Turf Hitta]

i think that mexican down the street did it

LMAO, thats the new "the devil made me do it"

"Why did you rape your own mother?"

"I think the mexican down the street did it"

 

[Mr Ceza]

I thought this thread was about Fat Tone ??????