The bible

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

It will never die down. The lies made by the church have assured it. It's the first successful religion to be widespread by use of the internet, and it's here to stay unless people just get sick of waiting for the "end of days", which will never happen as it says it will happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are only a few things that could even make people THINK it's completely false, and even that wouldn't stop it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.) Finding life elsewhere in the Universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.) Proving evolution, which it basically IS, people just deny it because of technicalities with carbon dating, which means NOTHING. There is more proof than that. :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's all I can think of right now, I'm eating. :P I know I have more but I don't want to keep goin'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True..but if the earth where truely that old...would that not make the Sun too close to the earth for sustainable life? You see the sun shrinks every day..good couple of tons a day. Add all 4.5 billion years to that and it comes out as a massive star.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the Earth was a molten hunk of rock 4 billion years ago for a reason...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get over it, dude. The Earth isn't 6,000 years old, and it isn't 10,000 years old, or 20,000, or 40,000. It just isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acctually...the earth wouldn'y be here. even if it was..how could life just "start"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're assuming that the sun has decayed at a constant rate. That's some of the reasoning that creationists use to support thier conclusion of a young earth and it is scientifically flawed and found to be wrong. Have a look at my topic 'the challenge,' seriously.

[insane]

You're assuming that the sun has decayed at a constant rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't belief in Carbon dating imply an assumption that carbon's half-life is constant?

[lordkrohn1626]

the bible....sigh....amazing how popular that fictious book is, now I do believe that it was loosely based on real events, some that never happened of course, and many that were exaggerated with each telling. The Bible you see was written by the Nicene Council in 321-325 AD. The king brought together all major religious scholars, 100 of them and they were tasked to make one book with a common theme for the masses to follow. They threw out 7 major "books" and condensed the remainders into a common line of thought, unfortunately for them it is easy to identify the more then 1300 major mistakes, stories that dont line up from one passage to another, different ages and dates between one or another, provable out right lies etc etc. The scary part to me are the religious fanatics who take every word literally. They believe it in it's entirety, god bless them....pity them for they are brain washed beyond saving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some of my favorite ones:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As one examines the biblical "Great Flood", conflicting elements become clear. The most obvious concerns the numbers of creatures Noah is to bring with him. In Gen. 6:19-20 God tells Noah to bring one pair of "every living thing including birds." But in Gen.7:2-3 God gives a different set of instructions. Here he tells Noah to bring with him seven pairs of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅcleanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[warri0r45]

 

You're assuming that the sun has decayed at a constant rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't belief in Carbon dating imply an assumption that carbon's half-life is constant?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, there's no belief in science. Isn't it ironic how the only science creationists disagree with is that which rubs them the wrong way. Secondly, we have found some things in nature to be constant and others not to be. I don't understand how you could compare carbon dating and the decay of the sun.

[magekillr]

 

fossils being "proven" to be billions of years old is just as real as the Bible being 100% true...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they havn't proved that...or it wouldn't be an argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's only an argument because it conflicts with theists opinions. It's not even disputed in the scientific community, therefore, you are wrong. Scientists have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that fossils are a fair bit more than 6000 years old. Read my topic the challenge. It alludes to the fact that the only people who dispute that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is true are theists that want to protect thier own agenda. Seriously, give it a go. This goes for TheLastTemplar too, as you seem to think the sun decays at a constant rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not disputed in the scientific community? are you sure about that? a lot of times if there are discoveries inside carbon dating that show that the scientists are wrong (and there are A LOT)...typically this research is thrown away and thought of as just that, a mistake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i find it funny how there have been mollusks that are still alive to be dated a few thousand years old...

[magekillr]

the bible....sigh....amazing how popular that fictious book is, now I do believe that it was loosely based on real events, some that never happened of course, and many that were exaggerated with each telling. The Bible you see was written by the Nicene Council in 321-325 AD. The king brought together all major religious scholars, 100 of them and they were tasked to make one book with a common theme for the masses to follow. They threw out 7 major "books" and condensed the remainders into a common line of thought, unfortunately for them it is easy to identify the more then 1300 major mistakes, stories that dont line up from one passage to another, different ages and dates between one or another, provable out right lies etc etc. The scary part to me are the religious fanatics who take every word literally. They believe it in it's entirety, god bless them....pity them for they are brain washed beyond saving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actually...those books you speak of were never even considered...let alone "thrown out".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To blindly believe something when all physical proof shows otherwise is only foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are more things that point to a creator than not.

[Tigra00]

Umm, explain to me how that would make the Earth not be here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not taking into account a few things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.) The creation of the Sun itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.) The fact that if the sun was 1% bigger or 1% closer to Earth, it would boil all the water off. It wouldn't have to be much bigger at all for it to melt the rocks into magma entirely. I mean, it'd have to be like 10% bigger/closer, but you're trying to make it sound as if the sun would of had to of been absolutely massive and monstrous 4.5 billion years ago. It wouldn't of had to be to lose a few tons of mass each day. The sun is 332,946 Earth sizes, so do the math. Over 4.5 billion years it would of lost, what...One Earth? Two? Three? Four? Hell, it could be 100 and not even matter as much as you're making it sound. Maybe even 1,000! I mean, you're making it sound like it was once protruding the orbit of Jupiter or something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does life just "start"? I'd like to say "very simply", but it isn't. But it's very simple to explain...All we are is chemicals, atoms...La-de-da. All put together to make us go "Yippie skippy we're devine entities!" when we're not. Religious people have a SEVERE inferiority complex and are extremely pompous. They actually take "Man evolved from a lower form of primate" as a person insult. Why? Because animals are generally not considered "smart"...Not like "human smart" anyways. Which they're really not, but guess what? We're all made from the same crap. Get down molecular and holy cow, you're the same thing as a damn monkey anyways! Hell, you're the same thing as your dog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's how it works, keep in mine I'm no scientist, but this is how they believe it happened and scientifically, it makes sense, otherwise they wouldn't even suggest it. Basically, all the stuff you need to make life came from comets and stuff. ALL of the water on Earth, for instance, is from comets smashing into the Earth when it was 4 billion years old. It was absolutely being bombarded with comets, and we got to keep all the water from them in the form of vapor, which is now liquid because it's cooled off. Yay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, all those nifty things like water and the other chemicals that make up life do a very cool thing when electricty flows through them - they create amino acids, which make up life. It's not too hard to say "Hmm...The water was here...The chemicals to make everything was here...LIGHTNING was striking from the atmosphere...Amino Acids were created and they kept on truckin' and here we are!" and have it make sense scientifically. All you need is Oxygen, Water, blah blah blah (go look up all the basic stuff you need if you want, I've read it but can't remember) and a nice little lightning bolt and yippie, amino acids and thus, life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop thinking you're so important, dude. You're not. You're just the smartest (well, not YOU, but our species) of the bunch that kept on truckin'. Congratulations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If God made us all and wanted us to know that, then maybe he shouldn't of made it possible to create life's building blocks in a test-tube with a damn home science kit.

[warri0r45]

 

 

fossils being "proven" to be billions of years old is just as real as the Bible being 100% true...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they havn't proved that...or it wouldn't be an argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's only an argument because it conflicts with theists opinions. It's not even disputed in the scientific community, therefore, you are wrong. Scientists have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that fossils are a fair bit more than 6000 years old. Read my topic the challenge. It alludes to the fact that the only people who dispute that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is true are theists that want to protect thier own agenda. Seriously, give it a go. This goes for TheLastTemplar too, as you seem to think the sun decays at a constant rate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not disputed in the scientific community? are you sure about that? a lot of times if there are discoveries inside carbon dating that show that the scientists are wrong (and there are A LOT)...typically this research is thrown away and thought of as just that, a mistake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i find it funny how there have been mollusks that are still alive to be dated a few thousand years old...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm certain it isn't disputed. The only people who dispute it are theists with an adjenda. Lucky for you, you have a chance to prove me wrong. I invite you and anyone else to try. And don't just narrow yourself to carbon dating. Any mistake or slip up and it's a sure bet creationists will keep slamming the fact, exaggerating and taking out of context for the next 50 years. Try researching radiometric dating and other isotope daughter-parent relations. Many times over, these techniques have proven the earth is not 6000 years old; not even close. The decay of radioactive materials is like clockwork and can be pumped into mathematical equations which are yet to slip up basically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But hey, at least I acknowlege that you (and indeed anyone) has the chance to prove me wrong. So give it a go.

[insane]

Firstly, there's no belief in science. Isn't it ironic how the only science creationists disagree with is that which rubs them the wrong way. Secondly, we have found some things in nature to be constant and others not to be. I don't understand how you could compare carbon dating and the decay of the sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said that his "proof" for young Earth was based on the assumption that the sun decays constantly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carbon dating is a simple tool people use to proof a not-young earth. However, carbon dating is based on the belief that carbon decays at a constant rate. You can call it a "non-belief", but you and I both know that we haven't observed carbon's decay for 60000 years, we just assume that it's constant for 60000 years.

[lordkrohn1626]

 

the bible....sigh....amazing how popular that fictious book is, now I do believe that it was loosely based on real events, some that never happened of course, and many that were exaggerated with each telling. The Bible you see was written by the Nicene Council in 321-325 AD. The king brought together all major religious scholars, 100 of them and they were tasked to make one book with a common theme for the masses to follow. They threw out 7 major "books" and condensed the remainders into a common line of thought, unfortunately for them it is easy to identify the more then 1300 major mistakes, stories that dont line up from one passage to another, different ages and dates between one or another, provable out right lies etc etc. The scary part to me are the religious fanatics who take every word literally. They believe it in it's entirety, god bless them....pity them for they are brain washed beyond saving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

actually...those books you speak of were never even considered...let alone "thrown out".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To blindly believe something when all physical proof shows otherwise is only foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are more things that point to a creator than not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"books not considered" or "thrown out" same thing, play on words...they didnt follow the common thread of thought that they wanted to present. My point is the Bible was written by agenda based group of people...divinely inspired.....doubtful with all the mistakes, especially when considering they didn't know the world was round and not flat, didn't understand the laws of science, take into consideration the logistical impossiblities of the stories when they made this crap up...or blindly wrote down heresay and exagerated stories from superstitious people, like the man who thought he saw a miracle when a bush spontaneously combusted (fire) and he heard voices...I am sure he did, it's called the state of the mind after dehydration and exposure to the sun......hehe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"there are more things that point to a creator than not", I concur, I never said God didn't exist, I merely implied the Bible is derived from the mind of man, loosely based on real events...very loosely.

[warri0r45]

 

Firstly, there's no belief in science. Isn't it ironic how the only science creationists disagree with is that which rubs them the wrong way. Secondly, we have found some things in nature to be constant and others not to be. I don't understand how you could compare carbon dating and the decay of the sun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said that his "proof" for young Earth was based on the assumption that the sun decays constantly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carbon dating is a simple tool people use to proof a not-young earth. However, carbon dating is based on the belief that carbon decays at a constant rate. You can call it a "non-belief", but you and I both know that we haven't observed carbon's decay for 60000 years, we just assume that it's constant for 60000 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, carbon dating isn't used (or can't be used reliably) for dating things over around 5600 years (from memory :? ). Secondly, people can make logical assumptions about what happened in the past which are the best thing we have. I know we can't make a time machine and go back to actually observe these things happening, but calculations of the past are far from a belief in something such as a religion. To even mention them in the same breath is odd. Science can change if it is wrong and uses high scrutiny, accountability and logic to formulate the best possible hypotheses and theories for what happened in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can go on about belief in science and scrutinise it with philosophy, but science is the best thing we have, seriously.

[Satenza]

He wasn't assuming anything based on religion he was assuming it based on the assumption the sun decays constantly, which is science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, with the Sun we only have what we can see, we can't take samples of it and so it is a greater assumption with less proof to back it up. With carbon dating sure theres an assumption involved but we have more than just observable evidence. Theres a much greater gap of assumption between the two.

[Rebdragon]

 

Stop pulling the ignorance card and accept the fact that people here actually know what they're talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hm. No. I won't because you DON'T. You are not Christians. Since you are not Christians you will not see the point in Christianity because you think it is stupid, illogical, mythical, load of cabbage.And according to your Writings that is true. Fine, let me use an example. How can you know what childbirth is truely like unless you are a woman? Yes, you can read up on it and learn everything there is to know about it. But in the end you can never experience child birth. So you can't know what it is truely like to have had that pain and agony.

 

 

 

:-s I'm Christian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So as you can see, Christianity needs to be experienced before you can write it off as another religion? Don't believe me? Have you ever experienced The Holy Spirit-Yes or no just that.

 

 

 

Define the "Holy Spirit", 'cause honestly, there are so many ways that an answer to that question could be twisted to say yes.

 

 

 

Have you ever been in a worshiop service and suddenly have had all your cares taken away-yes or no.

 

 

 

Yes, during a worship service on a mission trip to help poor children in Monterrey Mexico in Eight grade. Great experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you ever had a problem in life and when you go to scripture God seems to "open your eyes" and direct you to an answer to that problem-yes or no.

 

 

 

:-k Ya, I'd say so. There are a lot of great things the Bible can teach us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you do answer these..just put yes or no..none of this.."well...blah blah blah..".or "your wrong blah blah blah."

 

 

 

Again, ignorance card=annoying.

[insane]

Firstly, carbon dating isn't used (or can't be used reliably) for dating things over around 5600 years (from memory).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theres a much greater gap of assumption between the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, still an assumption on science's part though. That's all I was saying.

[warri0r45]

 

Firstly, carbon dating isn't used (or can't be used reliably) for dating things over around 5600 years (from memory).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14 to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theres a much greater gap of assumption between the two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, still an assumption on science's part though. That's all I was saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Ahh, I see where I went wrong; the half-life of carbon-14 is around 5700 years. #-o :oops:

[insane]

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe.

[warri0r45]

 

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Goodo. Sorry, I'm just a tad critical of anyone who tries to use science to prove a young earth when scientists and the scientific community conclusively states otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just one of those personal blood-boilers. :x :lol: :P

[Barihawk]

 

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To take that even farther, it's becoming widely accepted that the Creation happened, but the 7 days were symbolic of ages of prehistory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know the world is billions if not trillions of years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are also measuring years for the genealogies in roman years, whereas they could have been entirely different forms of measurement.

[warri0r45]

 

 

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To take that even farther, it's becoming widely accepted that the Creation happened, but the 7 days were symbolic of ages of prehistory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know the world is billions if not trillions of years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are also measuring years for the genealogies in roman years, whereas they could have been entirely different forms of measurement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not quite trillions (the universe is said to be no more than 20 billion), but it's refreshing to see a less fundamentalist view. :)

[fat_hobbit22]

the answer is so simple i don't no why people are posting so many theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok you can take the bible litraley - even though there is [cabbage] loads of eveidence against it being literal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you can tale it as a moral lesson. The most annoying thing in the world to me is how the bible gives you an opportunity on how you can inturpret a story in multiple ways, therefore none is neithier right nor wrong and the story is completley [bleep]ing useless

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its all fiction and you shouldnt take it seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

end of no amount of evidence in the world can disprove any one of those theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

side note

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

relegion and God are completley different things. Think of relegion as an earley society were laws and morals were established and relegion uses God as a sort of king to kustify what they say.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God is well God every argument for his non existance can be used to prove his existance (i no its not a he or she it just makes it simple)

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To take that even farther, it's becoming widely accepted that the Creation happened, but the 7 days were symbolic of ages of prehistory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know the world is billions if not trillions of years old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are also measuring years for the genealogies in roman years, whereas they could have been entirely different forms of measurement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not quite trillions (the universe is said to be no more than 20 billion), but it's refreshing to see a less fundamentalist view. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a fundamentalist. I also do research into theology before I say things. My father teaches multiple Bible classes and I have many friends and family that went to Perkins (the Oxford of theological schools).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very few fundamentalist theologians believe that the world is 6000 years old. Yet we still believe fully in the Creation, Birth, and Resurrection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too many people on this forum see Christians as Black and White, but there are hundreds of different flavors of Christian out there. Not just Ultra-Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal.

[lordkrohn1626]

 

 

My bad. Didn't know it was 60,000. Just out of curiosity, do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all intents and purposes, no. I believe the creation account is symbolic, or, God created an aged universe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To take that even farther, it's becoming widely accepted that the Creation happened, but the 7 days were symbolic of ages of prehistory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

amazing how people can be brainwashed isn't it? "widely accepted" doesn't mean right. Hitler's theories were "widely accepted" in Germany, didn't make them right. Average person has an IQ of 100, and thinks and writes at the 8th grade level....no wonder the "masses" buy the religion theory. IMHO religion was created to keep the "natives" in line, keeps the poor and stupid going and gives them something to look forward to after their sad life....fast forward to today, and as advanced as we are, people still buy into it. Nothing scarier then looking into the insane eyes of a religious fanatic as they quote scripture. "Praise the Lord"

[Barihawk]

What makes me disregard your entire post is that you state that the average human has an IQ of 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IQ tests are ranked on age. An average 8 year old has an IQ of 100. When he is 40 his IQ will still be 100 compared to other 40 year olds. This person can be smarter than a 14 year old with an IQ of 140 based on the scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IQ can not be used to compare large groups of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, evolution has become "widely accepted" too. It's another bloody Holocaust, isn't it? Everything is becoming widely accepted! We are all going to die!

[Ambassadar]

 

 

 

amazing how people can be brainwashed isn't it? "widely accepted" doesn't mean right. Hitler's theories were "widely accepted" in Germany, didn't make them right. Average person has an IQ of 100, and thinks and writes at the 8th grade level....no wonder the "masses" buy the religion theory. IMHO religion was created to keep the "natives" in line, keeps the poor and stupid going and gives them something to look forward to after their sad life....fast forward to today, and as advanced as we are, people still buy into it. Nothing scarier then looking into the insane eyes of a religious fanatic as they quote scripture. "Praise the Lord"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize how offensive a post this is? Do you also realize how arrogant you sound in it? You have built yourself up in your mind to think if someone believes something different than you they must automatically be an idiot. I'm just going off what you said in your post. Feel free to correct the perception you gave me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also like to ask what is your purpose for posting this? It is utterly pointless unless you just like discriminating against large segments of the population because you merely disagree with them. Is that the type person you are?

[lordkrohn1626]

What makes me disregard your entire post is that you state that the average human has an IQ of 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IQ tests are ranked on age. An average 8 year old has an IQ of 100. When he is 40 his IQ will still be 100 compared to other 40 year olds. This person can be smarter than a 14 year old with an IQ of 140 based on the scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IQ can not be used to compare large groups of people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, evolution has become "widely accepted" too. It's another bloody Holocaust, isn't it? Everything is becoming widely accepted! We are all going to die!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*points to self* Tested and registered member of MENSA, have a little back ground and understanding of which I speak.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before you spout off about IQ's, do a little research, heres some for you:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average IQ for Caucasian: 100

 

 

 

Average IQ for AFrican American: 90

 

 

 

Average IQ for Asian: 110

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

average that out: 100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is fact gentleman. Do the research. Note the word AVERAGE, their are geniuses from every demographic group throughout the world, I refer to the AVERAGE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My wife is a teacher, and has access to multiple studies that prove this. Also it is a fact that the average person reads and understands at the 8th grade level. As a reserve Police officer, I am required to write my reports at that level, so that a jury can understand them. I can not use big words to better articulate the facts of the case. This is called the real world, open your eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you realize how offensive a post this is? Do you also realize how arrogant you sound in it? You have built yourself up in your mind to think if someone believes something different than you they must automatically be an idiot. I'm just going off what you said in your post. Feel free to correct the perception you gave me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also like to ask what is your purpose for posting this? It is utterly pointless unless you just like discriminating against large segments of the population because you merely disagree with them. Is that the type person you are?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Offensive? religion itself offends me, but the masses who blindly believe don't care. Arrogant? yes Sir, you are correct, not the first time I have heard that. When you have a Bachelor's Degree in Criminal Justice with a 4.0 GPA, and are a registered member of MENSA, you tend to think you are a bit intelligent, which I am, arrogant? absolutely. I didn't say anyone was a idiot, just gullible. You are gullible to believe a book, written by man, with laughable stories in it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose to posting? isn't it obvious? I have studied religion for over 25 years, I have purposely exposed myself to many different versions of it, throughout the world..and have come to the conclusion that they are just sad. Thay all have positive and negative factors, but in the end, it is a unprovable belief in something inobtainable that makes the gullible feel better. I wasn't being discrimanatory when I said the average person reads and thinks at the 8th grade level..that is a FACT. remember the key word here again is AVERAGE.