Non religious black females.
Options
Comments
-
Stop doing this.
I know what you're going to do.
You're begging the question and soon it's gonna lead up to the Special pleading of your ? .
We can provide evidence through science but you can't provide any evidence for your ? .
Because it's imaginary and imaginative.
We need something to explain complex ? when we didn't know anything.
Now, we're discovering ? we the room for ? is dwindling.
We used to believe that someone getting a seizure was being possessed.
in 500 years it will be little people believing in ? or gods.
don't you think you've reached enough in one thread?
im asking you questions since you seem to know the answer to everything - share this wealth of knowldge.
check my posts, I havent confessed to be anything. If you dont have the answers then admit to it
I simply asked how did natural things come about?
It started with the Big Bang.
-
Stop doing this.
I know what you're going to do.
You're begging the question and soon it's gonna lead up to the Special pleading of your ? .
We can provide evidence through science but you can't provide any evidence for your ? .
Because it's imaginary and imaginative.
We need something to explain complex ? when we didn't know anything.
Now, we're discovering ? we the room for ? is dwindling.
We used to believe that someone getting a seizure was being possessed.
in 500 years it will be little people believing in ? or gods.
don't you think you've reached enough in one thread?
im asking you questions since you seem to know the answer to everything - share this wealth of knowldge.
check my posts, I havent confessed to be anything. If you dont have the answers then admit to it
I simply asked how did natural things come about?
It started with the Big Bang.
where did the big bang come from? how did it happen? -
Stop doing this.
I know what you're going to do.
You're begging the question and soon it's gonna lead up to the Special pleading of your ? .
We can provide evidence through science but you can't provide any evidence for your ? .
Because it's imaginary and imaginative.
We need something to explain complex ? when we didn't know anything.
Now, we're discovering ? we the room for ? is dwindling.
We used to believe that someone getting a seizure was being possessed.
in 500 years it will be little people believing in ? or gods.
don't you think you've reached enough in one thread?
im asking you questions since you seem to know the answer to everything - share this wealth of knowldge.
check my posts, I havent confessed to be anything. If you dont have the answers then admit to it
I simply asked how did natural things come about?
It started with the Big Bang.
where did the big bang come from? how did it happen?
The Big Bang is the expansion of our universe.
We don't know what happened before then.
We certainty don't think it was a supernatural phenomenon.
That's what scientists are trying to uncover.
It's an investigation.
When a murder is committed. We don't go around blame on the potential suspect.
We need evidence in it.
With ? , you don't. You just believe it is deception and stupid. -
Stop doing this.
I know what you're going to do.
You're begging the question and soon it's gonna lead up to the Special pleading of your ? .
We can provide evidence through science but you can't provide any evidence for your ? .
Because it's imaginary and imaginative.
We need something to explain complex ? when we didn't know anything.
Now, we're discovering ? we the room for ? is dwindling.
We used to believe that someone getting a seizure was being possessed.
in 500 years it will be little people believing in ? or gods.
don't you think you've reached enough in one thread?
im asking you questions since you seem to know the answer to everything - share this wealth of knowldge.
check my posts, I havent confessed to be anything. If you dont have the answers then admit to it
I simply asked how did natural things come about?
It started with the Big Bang.
where did the big bang come from? how did it happen?
The Big Bang is the expansion of our universe.
We don't know what happened before then.
We certainty don't think it was a supernatural phenomenon.
That's what scientists are trying to uncover.
It's an investigation.
When a murder is committed. We don't go around blame on the potential suspect.
We need evidence in it.
With ? , you don't. You just believe it is deception and stupid.
? you have not answered the questions nor has science you ? don't know -
the thread took a turn for the worst.
-
Stop doing this.
I know what you're going to do.
You're begging the question and soon it's gonna lead up to the Special pleading of your ? .
We can provide evidence through science but you can't provide any evidence for your ? .
Because it's imaginary and imaginative.
We need something to explain complex ? when we didn't know anything.
Now, we're discovering ? we the room for ? is dwindling.
We used to believe that someone getting a seizure was being possessed.
in 500 years it will be little people believing in ? or gods.
don't you think you've reached enough in one thread?
im asking you questions since you seem to know the answer to everything - share this wealth of knowldge.
check my posts, I havent confessed to be anything. If you dont have the answers then admit to it
I simply asked how did natural things come about?
It started with the Big Bang.
where did the big bang come from? how did it happen?
The Big Bang is the expansion of our universe.
We don't know what happened before then.
We certainty don't think it was a supernatural phenomenon.
That's what scientists are trying to uncover.
It's an investigation.
When a murder is committed. We don't go around blame on the potential suspect.
We need evidence in it.
With ? , you don't. You just believe it is deception and stupid.
? you have not answered the questions nor has science you ? don't know
I just said that. -
It started with the Big Bang.
ok. The origin of the big bang is still being investigated by science - true.
Those who choose to believe in it - is that not considered Faith?
You already agree that it isnt logical or based on any proven facts -
Okay I'll shorten it to just 10 ancient African and Middle-Eastern gods.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
You can't disprove all of them?Gold_Certificate wrote: »He's just saying that the thousands of gods from other people's religions are not real, but the one from his religion is real.
I am saying that i can disprove most of those other gods but you cannot disprove mine
Why not believe in the ones you can't disprove?
Here's a few to start:
Agdistis/Angdistis
Ah Puch
Ahura Mazda
Alberich
Allah
AmaterasuAn
Anahita
Anansi
Anat
Andvari
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
ApolloApsu
Ares
Artemis
Asclepius
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atlas
Baal
Ba Xian
Bacchus
Balder
Bast
Bellona
Bergelmir
Bes
Bixia Yuanjin
Bragi
Brahma
Brigit
Camaxtli
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Chang Hsi See Heng-O.
Charun
Chemosh
Cheng-huang
Cybele
Dagon
Damkina (Dumkina)
Davlin
Dawn
Demeter
Diana
Di Cang
Dionysus
Ea
El
Enki
Enlil
Eos
Epona
Ereskigal
Farbauti
Fenrir
Forseti
Fortuna
Freya
FreyrFrigg
Gaia
Ganesha
Ganga
GarudaGauri
Geb
Geong Si
Guanyin
Hades
Hanuman
Hathor
Hecate (Hekate)
HeliosHeng-o (Chang-o or Chang Hsi)
Hephaestus
Hera
Hermes
Hestia
Hod
Hoderi
Hoori
Horus
Hotei
Huitzilopochtli
Hsi-? -Mu
Hygeia
Inanna
IntiIris
Ishtar
Isis
Ixtab
Izanaki
Izanami
Janus
Jesus
Juno
Jupiter
Juturna
Kagutsuchi
Kartikeya
Khepri
Ki
Kingu
Kinich Ahau
Kishar
Krishna
Kuan-yin
Kukulcan
Kvasir
Lakshmi
Leto
LizaLoki
LughLuna
Magna Mater
Maia
Marduk
Mars
Mazu
Medb
Mercury
Mimir
Min
Minerva
MithrasMorrigan
Mot
Mummu
Muses
Nammu
Nanna
Nanna (Norse)
Nanse
Neith
Nemesis
Nephthys
Neptune
Nergal
Ninazu
Ninhurzag
Nintu
Ninurta
Njord
Nugua
Nut
Odin
Ohkuninushi
Ohyamatsumi
Orgelmir
Osiris
Ostara
Pan
Parvati
Phaethon
Phoebe
Phoebus Apollo
Pilumnus
Poseidon
Quetzalcoatl
Rama
ReRhea
Sabazius
Sarapis
Sarasvati
Selene
Shiva
Seshat
Seti (Set)
Shamash
Shapsu
Shen Yi
Shiva
Shu
Si-? -Mu
Sin
Sirona
SolSurya
Susanoh
Tawaret
Tefnut
Tezcatlipoca
Thanatos
Thor
Thoth
Tiamat
Tianhou
Tlaloc
TonatiuhToyo-Uke-Bime
Tyche
Tyr
UtuUllr
Uzume
Vediovis
Venus
Vesta
Vishnu
Volturnus
Vulcan
Xipe
Xi ? -mu
Xochipilli
Xochiquetzal
Yam
Yarikh
Yhwh
Ymir
Yu-huang
Yum Kimil
Zeus
^^Can you at least disprove all of those?
List is to ? long and i said i can disprove "most" because each individual has there own concept of ? . for me to disprove all of them i would have to know all people and learn what their concept of ? entails.
Can you disprove Achamán, Adad, Ahura Mazda, Anshur, Anu, Brekyirihunuade, Chukwu, Enlil, Moloch, and Olòrún?
If you're saying you can't disprove some gods because you don't know enough about them, that would make you agnostic of their existence. -
It doesn't make sense to question the big bang with 'where did it come from?' as an attempt to refute it when the same question applies to ? .
-
Factually, the "Big Bang" theory is supported by the observable, outward expansion of the Universe.
Logically, it is theorized that if the Universe is expanding outward, then it may have started this expansion at a single point; this is the "Big Bang" theory.
So it is based on both logic and facts. -
What is north of the north pole?
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Factually, the "Big Bang" theory is supported by the observable, outward expansion of the Universe.
Logically, it is theorized that if the Universe is expanding outward, then it may have started this expansion at a single point; this is the "Big Bang" theory.
So it is based on both logic and facts.
And problems........
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that a small deviation from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.
In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.
LOL....
@ questioning "special values"..............
*I sent my scourge*
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k2LgcwBO92Y/UKhJX0RfoyI/AAAAAAAABvo/IpZ6wKtqa5Q/s400/? .gif[/img] -
Bambu, you're not a cosmologist or physicist.
So, I won't be taking your opinion seriously. -
Word, this is why it's a theory bruh; its flaws do nothing to dispute its factual and logical basis.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Factually, the "Big Bang" theory is supported by the observable, outward expansion of the Universe.
Logically, it is theorized that if the Universe is expanding outward, then it may have started this expansion at a single point; this is the "Big Bang" theory.
So it is based on both logic and facts.
And problems........
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that a small deviation from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.
In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.
LOL....
@ questioning "special values"..............
*I sent my scourge*
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k2LgcwBO92Y/UKhJX0RfoyI/AAAAAAAABvo/IpZ6wKtqa5Q/s400/? .gif[/img]
I prefer the "Big Bounce" or "Big Crunch" theory, so I am in no way arguing for the "Big Bang" theory. -
Stopitfive wrote: »And ? isn't one of that.
So, stop using this false dictohomy just to justify your believes.
I wanted to believe in a ? but this natural world is too flawed to have the ? of holy books to exist.
The Universe is better without ? anyways.
1. just answer my question...
2. I have not stated my beliefs...Ajackson17 wrote: »Stopitfive wrote: »funny how y'all accept that certain mundane things r beyond your comprehension and control... yet the notion of a deity is somehow foolish...
Nothing is out of our control and comprehension, we just don't have the capabilities "yet" to fully understand
u sonned yaself...
Nah, I didn't. Lightening what was thought to be supernatural and beyond our control but we learned how to harness it, haven't we? We just have to fully understand it and once we do, the myth dies more and more. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »Shango is a real ? type of ? . He uses fire and lightening and destroys weak ? . And he got two axes and cuts ? ? heads and ? . He is pretty dope.
shango is not a ? he is an aspect of ? the orishas are not gods in the sense of creation.
I wasn't going for that, but I thought the artwork was pretty cool. -
It's in the right direction due to that there are factual evidence pointing us in that direction, everything in the theory might not be correct but there are some factual information that lead to that thought process. It's not a faith thing, it's that we do have substantial amount of evidence that leads us to this road and we are investigating to see if it's the correct road if we keep going that way. Faith is going where you don't have the information, but you are going that way because you believe. Those are two different things. People do not realize how much information and factual info and tested in order to be a theory or otherwise it would be a hypothesis in which you could say it's similiar to faith.
-
Bambu, you're not a cosmologist or physicist.
So, I won't be taking your opinion seriously.
? please..........Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Word, this is why it's a theory bruh; its flaws do nothing to dispute its factual and logical basis.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Factually, the "Big Bang" theory is supported by the observable, outward expansion of the Universe.
Logically, it is theorized that if the Universe is expanding outward, then it may have started this expansion at a single point; this is the "Big Bang" theory.
So it is based on both logic and facts.
And problems........
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that a small deviation from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.
In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.
LOL....
@ questioning "special values"..............
*I sent my scourge*
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k2LgcwBO92Y/UKhJX0RfoyI/AAAAAAAABvo/IpZ6wKtqa5Q/s400/? .gif[/img]
I prefer the "Big Bounce" or "Big Crunch" theory, so I am in no way arguing for the "Big Bang" theory.
Word......
It would be a regrettable waste, it would be nothing short of madness, were you, brave King, and your valiant troops to perish... all because of a simple misunderstanding............
-
Those were some real ? b..Gold_Certificate wrote: »Isis
Osiris
Thoth -
? take the word "Bang" seriously.
LMAO and @ co-sign Fiat. -
RodrigueZz wrote: »It doesn't make sense to question the big bang with 'where did it come from?' as an attempt to refute it when the same question applies to ? .
exactly my point. If my question can't refute it's existence, why in the same breath question an existence of a ? ?
whether you believe in nothing, science or have some form of faith/religion - its a belief in something that has some facts ALSO takes faith to consume.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Factually, the "Big Bang" theory is supported by the observable, outward expansion of the Universe.
Logically, it is theorized that if the Universe is expanding outward, then it may have started this expansion at a single point; this is the "Big Bang" theory.
So it is based on both logic and facts.
you lost me there bro....its already been pointed out that SCIENTIST'S are still figuring out where/how this 'event' took place, everything else is just theory as you saidWhat is north of the north pole?
IDK. whats the answer?
-
The expansion of the Universe has been examined.
Your ? has not and will not because he's supernatural.
And the catch is you have to die to meet him.
Doesn't this sound silly to you? -
I said it's a theory based on both logic and facts bruh; the reason scientists are still refining this logically/factually based theory is because it's a theory....Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Factually, the "Big Bang" theory is supported by the observable, outward expansion of the Universe.
Logically, it is theorized that if the Universe is expanding outward, then it may have started this expansion at a single point; this is the "Big Bang" theory.
So it is based on both logic and facts.
you lost me there bro....its already been pointed out that SCIENTIST'S are still figuring out where/how this 'event' took place, everything else is just theory as you said...
For anything to be a scientific theory, it must have some logic/facts behind it. -
Stop doing this.
I know what you're going to do.
You're begging the question and soon it's gonna lead up to the Special pleading of your ? .
We can provide evidence through science but you can't provide any evidence for your ? .
Because it's imaginary and imaginative.
We need something to explain complex ? when we didn't know anything.
Now, we're discovering ? we the room for ? is dwindling.
We used to believe that someone getting a seizure was being possessed.
in 500 years it will be little people believing in ? or gods.
don't you think you've reached enough in one thread?
im asking you questions since you seem to know the answer to everything - share this wealth of knowldge.
check my posts, I havent confessed to be anything. If you dont have the answers then admit to it
I simply asked how did natural things come about?
It started with the Big Bang.
where did the big bang come from? how did it happen?
The Big Bang is the expansion of our universe.
We don't know what happened before then.
We certainty don't think it was a supernatural phenomenon.
That's what scientists are trying to uncover.
It's an investigation.
When a murder is committed. We don't go around blame on the potential suspect.
We need evidence in it.
With ? , you don't. You just believe it is deception and stupid.
? you have not answered the questions nor has science you ? don't know
So bc we don't know we should stop looking for evidence and just say its ? ??? That's stupid and ? . -
The expansion of the Universe has been examined.
And its flaws exposed.........
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that a small deviation from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.
In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.
LOL....
@ questioning "special values"..............
*You fail the Gods*
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-k2LgcwBO92Y/UKhJX0RfoyI/AAAAAAAABvo/IpZ6wKtqa5Q/s400/? .gif[/img]
