# 473!   :)



## BANDERSNATCH (Mar 25, 2016)

http://www.usnews.com/news/science/...stripped-down-dna-may-hint-at-secrets-of-life

Irreducibly complex.  

Bandy


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2016)

And if they find out what those 149 genes do, if they figure out how to make life from inert material it won't matter to you.  You will still believe.  That's the problem with Apologist argument.  As long as ANYTHING remains unknown (which is to say forever), there will be opportunity to say "God did it".

Try to dis-confirm your bias one time.  You can't do it. Your belief hinges on the absence of doubt; not very scientific.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Mar 25, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> And if they find out what those 149 genes do, if they figure out how to make life from inert material it won't matter to you.  You will still believe.  That's the problem with Apologist argument.  As long as ANYTHING remains unknown (which is to say forever), there will be opportunity to say "God did it".
> 
> Try to dis-confirm your bias one time.  You can't do it. Your belief hinges on the absence of doubt; not very scientific.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 25, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


>



Cheers, Mate.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2016)

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Mar 25, 2016)

bullethead said:


> http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html



     Happy Easter, guys!   

Bandy


----------



## 660griz (Mar 25, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Happy Easter, guys!
> 
> Bandy



Mmmm candy. 
I have some Almond Joy eggs waiting on me.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 25, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Happy Easter, guys!
> 
> Bandy


I hope you and your family have a Happy Easter also.


----------



## Israel (Mar 26, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> And if they find out what those 149 genes do, if they figure out how to make life from inert material it won't matter to you.  You will still believe.  That's the problem with Apologist argument.  As long as ANYTHING remains unknown (which is to say forever), there will be opportunity to say "God did it".
> 
> Try to dis-confirm your bias one time.  You can't do it. Your belief hinges on the absence of doubt; not very scientific.



Why is this so funny to me?
Look! Inert material has "come to life!" And all done without design! (Is that what they article will say?)
I hope it gets edited for typos.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2016)

Israel said:


> Why is this so funny to me?
> Look! Inert material has "come to life!" And all done without design! (Is that what they article will say?)
> I hope it gets edited for typos.


While no one yet knows what combination of which materials produces life, scientists are working on it. http://www.universetoday.com/104336/how-did-life-begin/

Your laughing is an evolutionary fight or flight  response. You laugh because you are uncomfortable with your understanding about life or design.  It is an example of millions of years of adaptation and how you cope with situations.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 26, 2016)

Israel said:


> Why is this so funny to me?
> Look! Inert material has "come to life!" And all done without design! (Is that what they article will say?)
> I hope it gets edited for typos.




It's funny to you because (I assume) that you can't see passed your bias that God created everything with purpose.  

Lets have an experience together.   Let's imagine an article that states "Scientists have created RNA in a lab from inert materials that leads to life" and I'll consider it from the stand point of a believer and you do the same from the standpoint of a non-believer.  We will in essence be trying to counter our cognitive bias.   We can agree to post our results simultaneously thereby not posting in reaction to one another.  Want to try?  I'll let you know when I've come up with my synopsis and you let me know when yours is ready then we can post them simultaneously.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 26, 2016)

I plan to write a word doc that i can easily and quickly cut and paste onto this thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 26, 2016)

I see you Bullethead. You play too.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 26, 2016)

bullethead said:


> While no one yet knows what combination of which materials produces life, scientists are working on it. http://www.universetoday.com/104336/how-did-life-begin/
> 
> Your laughing is an evolutionary fight or flight  response. You laugh because you are uncomfortable with your understanding about life or design.  It is an example of millions of years of adaptation and how you cope with situations.



Let's see if we truly understand where each of us is coming from.  Run the experiment with us.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 26, 2016)

Anyone else interested should play, too.  I suggest posting the synopsis on Monday evening at 7pm EST.  Any other suggestions?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 26, 2016)

I don't like homework assignments


----------



## welderguy (Mar 28, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> Anyone else interested should play, too.  I suggest posting the synopsis on Monday evening at 7pm EST.  Any other suggestions?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 28, 2016)

welderguy said:


>



No one wanted to play.


----------



## welderguy (Mar 28, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> No one wanted to play.



Probly cause it would take more effort than simple cut n paste.
Sorry Ambush.nice try.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Probly cause it would take more effort than simple cut n paste.
> Sorry Ambush.nice try.


Easter weekend is fairly hectic around here. 
Must have been equally as busy at welders place too?


----------



## welderguy (Mar 29, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Easter weekend is fairly hectic around here.
> Must have been equally as busy at welders place too?



Kinda busy.Had my whole family over at the house for barbeque chickens.Good times.
Fished on Saturday.Caught a mess of white bass.Real good times.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Kinda busy.Had my whole family over at the house for barbeque chickens.Good times.
> Fished on Saturday.Caught a mess of white bass.Real good times.



Then why are you pointing fingers and making cracks about effort in your previous post?


----------



## welderguy (Mar 29, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Then why are you pointing fingers and making cracks about effort in your previous post?



Uhh..I think you might have misread me.
Anyway,I never intended on playing the game.I was just going to be a spectator.
But its all good.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Mar 29, 2016)

Israel said:


> Why is this so funny to me?
> Look! Inert material has "come to life!" And all done without design! (Is that what they article will say?)
> I hope it gets edited for typos.




I wonder if that same article will have a quote from the scientists somewhere along the lines of "and we created this life in our image, with our likeness"?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 29, 2016)

swampstalker24 said:


> I wonder if that same article will have a quote from the scientists somewhere along the lines of "and we created this life in our image, with our likeness"?



They would probably say "This is how life began.  This is where we came from".  It doesn't answer why.


----------



## Israel (Mar 30, 2016)

ambush80 said:


> It's funny to you because (I assume) that you can't see passed your bias that God created everything with purpose.
> 
> Lets have an experience together.   Let's imagine an article that states "Scientists have created RNA in a lab from inert materials that leads to life" and I'll consider it from the stand point of a believer and you do the same from the standpoint of a non-believer.  We will in essence be trying to counter our cognitive bias.   We can agree to post our results simultaneously thereby not posting in reaction to one another.  Want to try?  I'll let you know when I've come up with my synopsis and you let me know when yours is ready then we can post them simultaneously.



I suppose I must answer my own question...as to why this appears so funny, as it also is apparent from your response that the most obvious ingredient in it all is summarily overlooked. Design.
Look! Life can be created! There is no need of designer! Said the men who labored years, banged their proverbial heads against the wall, stayed up late over calculations, researches and countless experiments. 

"Just" for the purpose...of doing it.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 30, 2016)

Israel said:


> I suppose I must answer my own question...as to why this appears so funny, as it also is apparent from your response that the most obvious ingredient in it all is summarily overlooked. Design.
> Look! Life can be created! There is no need of designer! Said the men who labored years, banged their proverbial heads against the wall, stayed up late over calculations, researches and countless experiments.
> 
> "Just" for the purpose...of doing it.



Every rock that falls, every leaf that blows in the wind, every wave upon the shore, all are governed by the will of the Lord.  Clearly there could be no POSSIBILITY of life without Divine Providence.  The odds of life happening by accident are ASTRONOMICAL.  Besides, I have witnessed in my own life many miracles that show that God was acting in my life. He never lets me down.  He never leaves my side.  He is always in my thoughts as I am in His.  

(This was my homework assignment)

Does it sound reasonable coming from my finger tips?  Do my claims require any more proof?  Does it sound like I understand the 'logic' of believers?  What would it take for me to say those things and believe them?  If I believed them would it make them true?


----------



## Israel (Mar 31, 2016)

The Lord, or whatever you may care to call "it", that is responsible in whatever way for "being" is far less in my thoughts than whatever my present project may be. I am more often concerned with the the daily routine of responsibilities I have assumed, job, family, houses, finances and the ways in which I can, with minimum outlay and expenditure of my life force, reduce the stresses I seem to have willingly taken on in the acceptance of them. There appears not one "thing" I have taken on in pleasure that does not later turn to work. And work that demands, brings pressure, is relentless in its requirement for attention and service that makes me quite aware the pleasure of life where I have sought it may be worse than fleeting, but the ultimate illusion and trick. Pleasure has made a fool of me, enticing me down a road that appears to open into a large glade but instead turns to cell of hardened steel. And I am at a complete loss in all things I consider worthy of pursuit. There's not one place I can make for myself of secure peace. And, I envy the sparrow. He may not look as happy as I may like to think I should be, but he surely doesn't appear moribund.


Now, my answer, such as it is, has less to do with your assignment than what appears to me as the futility and energy required I have discovered in manufacturing lies about "myself". The above is not an attempt to "look" from another side, but a door I find opened I find myself free to walk through. I needn't ask you if you believe "my" experience or consider my processes valid. They are "me", in a case hardened nutshell.

In short, I have no life of my own.
Nevertheless, I live.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 1, 2016)

An atheist walking down the beach sees 3 letters of a partially washed away word scrawled in the sand and immediately recognizes it as proof of intelligence.  Same person sees a 3.2 BILLION bit of specifically sequenced information that correlates exactly to one specific, individual, human being and yet denies any intelligence is responsible for it.  

It's not for a 'lack of evidence' that one denies God, but that of 
'suppression of the evidence', thus the question isn't one of reason but of integrity.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 1, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> An atheist walking down the beach sees 3 letters of a partially washed away word scrawled in the sand and immediately recognizes it as proof of intelligence.  Same person sees a 3.2 BILLION bit of specifically sequenced information that correlates exactly to one specific, individual, human being and yet denies any intelligence is responsible for it.
> 
> It's not for a 'lack of evidence' that one denies God, but that of
> 'suppression of the evidence', thus the question isn't one of reason but of integrity.



Atheist have nothing to gain from suppression of evidence while creationist have everything to gain from made up intelligent design science. 
Intelligent design has been debunked over and over. 

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.

The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for Intelligent Design proponents. Where did the CSI(Complex Specific Information) for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from?

Evolution!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 1, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> An atheist walking down the beach sees 3 letters of a partially washed away word scrawled in the sand and immediately recognizes it as proof of intelligence.  Same person sees a 3.2 BILLION bit of specifically sequenced information that correlates exactly to one specific, individual, human being and yet denies any intelligence is responsible for it.
> 
> It's not for a 'lack of evidence' that one denies God, but that of
> 'suppression of the evidence', thus the question isn't one of reason but of integrity.



Because you're looking at it from the results side. 

All 3.2 billion bits, from your example, didn't just line up all at once and poof complicated life. It was an iterative effort.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 1, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> An atheist walking down the beach sees 3 letters of a partially washed away word scrawled in the sand and immediately recognizes it as proof of intelligence.  Same person sees a 3.2 BILLION bit of specifically sequenced information that correlates exactly to one specific, individual, human being and yet denies any intelligence is responsible for it.
> 
> It's not for a 'lack of evidence' that one denies God, but that of
> 'suppression of the evidence', thus the question isn't one of reason but of integrity.


Another, smarter atheist explains to the first guy that to get those three letters into the sand it took years of schooling  which came from years of teaching which came from an evolutionary path that goes back hundreds of thousands to millions of years(not 6000) when nobody would have known what those 3 letters were let alone meant.


----------



## Israel (Apr 2, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because you're looking at it from the results side.
> 
> All 3.2 billion bits, from your example, didn't just line up all at once and poof complicated life. It was an iterative effort.


yes...it took consciousness in some form to relate to consciousness...in another.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2016)

Israel said:


> yes...it took consciousness in some form to relate to consciousness...in another.


For example....


----------



## Israel (Apr 2, 2016)

bullethead said:


> For example....



us, believing in consciousness. I do believe you have it.

That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.

I believe I do, too.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2016)

Israel said:


> us, believing in consciousness. I do believe you have it.
> 
> That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world.
> 
> I believe I do, too.



Light is a poor example of consciousness


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 2, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Light is a poor example of consciousness



Only for the unconscious and blind, but it's a very succinct metaphor for those who once had no conscious and were blind.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 2, 2016)

Israel said:


> yes...it took consciousness in some form to relate to consciousness...in another.



Bingo.


----------



## Israel (Apr 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Light is a poor example of consciousness



I may not disagree. I couldn't with absolute certainty, at this point, make the claim that consciousness is the only thing included in that "light". But I also don't deny I believe it, in some measure, includes it.
Perhaps included in consciousness is the need, at some basic level, for its increase, that is what men call a "need to know". 
I watch my two babies grow. I don't recall ever having to prompt them to an interest in what I am doing. And yet, how often comes this question now from both, several times a day "Boompah what you doin'?" 

It is very much as though it is insufficient for them to know only what they are doing, they want to know what is taking place around them. Surely in the midst of things in which their attention is grasped I come and go without their question. But, more and more it appears, they want to know what others are "about".

It also appears (to me) we do this, on here, almost daily. In peculiar ways we come to see one another, perhaps even know, one another. And even develop an understanding of "likeness in kind" with one another.

Things that go bump in the night, we may all be not unlike...to one another.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Only for the unconscious and blind, but it's a very succinct metaphor for those who once had no conscious and were blind.


Oh of course sfd,there always has to be unprovable claims of uniqueness that go along  your exclusive club membership. 
Yep, YOU are special.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2016)

Israel said:


> I may not disagree. I couldn't with absolute certainty, at this point, make the claim that consciousness is the only thing included in that "light". But I also don't deny I believe it, in some measure, includes it.
> Perhaps included in consciousness is the need, at some basic level, for its increase, that is what men call a "need to know".
> I watch my two babies grow. I don't recall ever having to prompt them to an interest in what I am doing. And yet, how often comes this question now from both, several times a day "Boompah what you doin'?"
> 
> ...


So your version  includes everyone while sfd's  version is exclusive.
Religious beliefs certainly vary.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Oh of course sfd,there always has to be unprovable claims of uniqueness that go along  your exclusive club membership.
> Yep, YOU are special.



Why do you interpret him as saying all the blind will always remain blind?

Thief on the cross says otherwise.All it takes is the movement of the Spirit to make one go from railing on Jesus to asking for His mercy.


----------



## Israel (Apr 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Oh of course sfd,there always has to be unprovable claims of uniqueness that go along  your exclusive club membership.
> Yep, YOU are special.



Yes, he is...no less than you.
Can you...would you, are you able to...stop for just one moment, even in what you may perceive as the all you know...of all the farrest flung reaches of a universe some describe as infinite, and you may also...and consider you are the only you there ever has been or ever could be? You. Are "you" anywhere else? At any time else? What are you, in your being, but special?
And, what do you see when you consider all...that is not you?
Are you not there, too?
At this moment I perceive you here, with me.
Is either of us more right?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Why do you interpret him as saying all the blind will always remain blind?
> 
> Thief on the cross says otherwise.All it takes is the movement of the Spirit to make one go from railing on Jesus to asking for His mercy.


Because he specifically said "only for the unconscious and the blind".
He is clearly speaking about those two groups  even though in reality he has no clue whether or not he fits those definitions, let alone he can decifer if anyone else does.
Lots of thieves were crucified. There is no need to interject more heresay and unprovable claims from ancient stories into this.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2016)

Israel said:


> Yes, he is...no less than you.
> Can you...would you, are you able to...stop for just one moment, even in what you may perceive as the all you know...of all the farrest flung reaches of a universe some describe as infinite, and you may also...and consider you are the only you there ever has been or ever could be? You. Are "you" anywhere else? At any time else? What are you, in your being, but special?
> And, what do you see when you consider all...that is not you?
> Are you not there, too?
> ...



You make a point for the non believers, anything can be imagined.


----------



## Israel (Apr 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You make a point for the non believers, anything can be imagined.



Read what you wrote again.
Is that "the truth"?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2016)

bullethead said:


> You make a point for the non believers, anything can be imagined.


Truth


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 3, 2016)

What do you call a blind man who denies there is anything beyond his limited sense of perception despite billions of testimonies of formerly blind people that there is?  An Atheist.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 3, 2016)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What do you call a blind man who denies there is anything beyond his limited sense of perception despite billions of testimonies of formerly blind people that there is?  An Atheist.


Fire you're writer, he stinks.
Since you base your beliefs on numbers, it must be a reality slap to realize that your claim of billions is STILL in the minority. You are short about 5 billion and by your standards that trumps your own proof. 
Do you even think this through before you type?


----------



## Israel (Apr 4, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Truth


Is truth something imagined?


----------



## welderguy (Apr 4, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Fire you're writer, he stinks.
> Since you base your beliefs on numbers, it must be a reality slap to realize that your claim of billions is STILL in the minority. You are short about 5 billion and by your standards that trumps your own proof.
> Do you even think this through before you type?



His "billions" could be higher than your "billions5 billion".
He didnt specify how many.

Glad I could help YOU think it through.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2016)

Israel said:


> Is truth something imagined?


In some cases specific to the individual, things imagined are their truth.
But, discussing truth could take up a lot of bandwidth in here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Apr 4, 2016)

bullethead said:


> In some cases specific to the individual, things imagined are their truth.
> But, discussing truth could take up a lot of bandwidth in here.



It already has.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 4, 2016)

welderguy said:


> His "billions" could be higher than your "billions5 billion".
> He didnt specify how many.
> 
> Glad I could help YOU think it through.



Unless he is imagining people there are only so many on earth. Roughly 2 billion are Christians. Their claims, beliefs and experiences vary to great extremes but for this arguments sake let's say they are all exactly as sfd describes.
There are approximately 7.5 billion people on the planet.

YOUR knowledge, research and math skills are severely lacking. For those reasons I never ask for you to help me think anything through. I end up correcting you, like now, having to point out to you that 5.5 billion is a larger number than 2 billion. So unless sfd is hiding a few billion people in his shirt pocket YOUR math doesn't add up.

I don't want to interrupt your coloring book session by introducing that many of the other left over billions say they are also "not blind" as their eyes have been opened by the god (s) they worship, so their testimony is as equal or as garbage as any Christian's claims, so just sit quietly and try to stay inside the lines until called upon.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 4, 2016)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It already has.


----------



## welderguy (Apr 4, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Unless he is imagining people there are only so many on earth. Roughly 2 billion are Christians. Their claims, beliefs and experiences vary to great extremes but for this arguments sake let's say they are all exactly as sfd describes.
> There are approximately 7.5 billion people on the planet.
> 
> YOUR knowledge, research and math skills are severely lacking. For those reasons I never ask for you to help me think anything through. I end up correcting you, like now, having to point out to you that 5.5 billion is a larger number than 2 billion. So unless sfd is hiding a few billion people in his shirt pocket YOUR math doesn't add up.
> ...



That made me laugh out loud.
Bullhead,try to focus.I know its hard but try.
We,or at least I, am not just talking about the number of people living on the planet right now.Im talking about the number of people ,since Jesus walked on the earth,that testify to believing in Him.Do that math sir.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2016)

welderguy said:


> That made me laugh out loud.
> Bullhead,try to focus.I know its hard but try.
> We,or at least I, am not just talking about the number of people living on the planet right now.Im talking about the number of people ,since Jesus walked on the earth,that testify to believing in Him.Do that math sir.



I will type slow so you can keep up.
It is relative.
 Before Jesus there were no Christians but there were tens of millions of people that could testify that some other god opened their eyes.
In the time since Jesus walked the earth, the Christians started their testifying but they were already behind by hundreds of millions. 
In the 2000 years following Jesus, as the population of Christians grew so did the polulation ofevery other believer of every other faith.
Sure, if you want to do weldermath and ONLY count the people of Christian faith that claim to have had their eyes opened, you would get the numbers you talk about.  But in typical weldermath fashion you ignore all the people before, during and after Jesus who don't believe in him. 
Before Jesus + no christians = tens of millions of non christians.
During Jesus + a few christians - hundreds of millions of non Christians = welders math is starting to crumble under facts.
Since Jesus + all the Christians that have ever lived - all the other non christians that have ever lived = Christians  down by billions over 2000 years.
Weldermath can only count Christians and ignores all the other people that existed at the same time.
Stick to coloring


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 5, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I will type slow so you can keep up.
> It is relative.
> Before Jesus there were no Christians but there were tens of millions of people that could testify that some other god opened their eyes.
> In the time since Jesus walked the earth, the Christians started their testifying but they were already behind by hundreds of millions.
> ...



Should the pre-Christ Jews be added in somewhere?      Maybe have the bean counters group them all together as Judeo-Christian?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Should the pre-Christ Jews be added in somewhere?      Maybe have the bean counters group them all together as Judeo-Christian?


Do whatever ya think ya have to do in order to make the math work.
But the numbers would still be short.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 5, 2016)

bullethead said:


> Do whatever ya think ya have to do in order to make the math work.
> But the numbers would still be short.



I'm an engineer; I can make the math work  

Actually, the Lord said that few would find the Way, so I'm good with short numbers.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 5, 2016)

Getting back to my original question, was there ever a consensus on whether the apostles were atheists or just corporately deceived followers of Christ?

think this thread got sidetracked somewhere along the line.    lol


----------



## welderguy (Apr 5, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Getting back to my original question, was there ever a consensus on whether the apostles were atheists or just corporately deceived followers of Christ?
> 
> think this thread got sidetracked somewhere along the line.    lol



When the Roman empire conquered new territory they would not attempt to erradicate all the different religions but rather incorporated all of them into a pantheistic type religion.The Christians and apostles were not in acceptance of the multiple god worship,proclaiming theres only one true God.They were then ironically labeled as atheists for this and persecuted.Many were put to death.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2016)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Getting back to my original question, was there ever a consensus on whether the apostles were atheists or just corporately deceived followers of Christ?
> 
> think this thread got sidetracked somewhere along the line.    lol



I don't want to step on the toes of someone who is so good with numbers and pays attention to such fine details as an engineer would, but, the apostle/atheist thread is here 
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=846922


----------



## bullethead (Apr 5, 2016)

welderguy said:


> When the Roman empire conquered new territory they would not attempt to erradicate all the different religions but rather incorporated all of them into a pantheistic type religion.The Christians and apostles were not in acceptance of the multiple god worship,proclaiming theres only one true God.They were then ironically labeled as atheists for this and persecuted.Many were put to death.


They should have overthrown the Romans being that they outnumbered them by billions


----------



## 660griz (Apr 5, 2016)

This entire thread is so irreducibly complex.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Apr 5, 2016)

bullethead said:


> I don't want to step on the toes of someone who is so good with numbers and pays attention to such fine details as an engineer would, but, the apostle/atheist thread is here
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=846922


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 5, 2016)

660griz said:


> This entire thread is so irreducibly complex.



lols


----------



## welderguy (Apr 5, 2016)

Has anyone seen my crayons!?


----------

