FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Inferno at AIG Campus, with dumb commentary from onlookers

Inferno at AIG Campus, with dumb commentary from onlookers

(2:29) March 26, 2014: Fire rages through the AIG Campus in Houston, Texas. Footage and commentary on the rescue of construction worker trapped on a ledge.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1356 days ago)

Wow, that construction worker is one seriously cool guy under pressure and nice job firemen, what a blaze.

I'm not religious but I don't mind those comments, they're excited and scared and just expressing themselves.

ReplyVote up (128)down (105)
Original comment

Wow, that construction worker is one seriously cool guy under pressure and nice job firemen, what a blaze.

I'm not religious but I don't mind those comments, they're excited and scared and just expressing themselves.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1357 days ago)

"Thank you Jesus?" I think more, "Thank you fire Service"

ReplyVote up (165)down (144)
Original comment

"Thank you Jesus?" I think more, "Thank you fire Service"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1357 days ago)

God allowed the fireman to make it there on time by clearing traffic and anything else that could have caused a delay. Let those people pick that career path, made sure they did not call in sick that day, etc.

Don't know why people always mention Jesus in these situations because that breaks a couple commandments such as Do not have any other gods before Me and Do not take My name in vain.

ReplyVote up (150)down (143)
Original comment

God allowed the fireman to make it there on time by clearing traffic and anything else that could have caused a delay. Let those people pick that career path, made sure they did not call in sick that day, etc.

Don't know why people always mention Jesus in these situations because that breaks a couple commandments such as Do not have any other gods before Me and Do not take My name in vain.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1356 days ago)

Hmm... if that were the case, surely God allowed the fire to start - let the arsonist enjoy fire-starting or permitted the shoddy electrician to fit sub-standard cables (or however the fire started). If God produced the fireman, He produced the fire as well.

I'll still be putting my faith in the fire service rather than an allegedly omnipotent being who could have prevented all this if He hadn't been moving in such mysterious ways.

ReplyVote up (136)down (135)
Original comment

Hmm... if that were the case, surely God allowed the fire to start - let the arsonist enjoy fire-starting or permitted the shoddy electrician to fit sub-standard cables (or however the fire started). If God produced the fireman, He produced the fire as well.

I'll still be putting my faith in the fire service rather than an allegedly omnipotent being who could have prevented all this if He hadn't been moving in such mysterious ways.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1356 days ago)

I believe you may have misunderstood. God did not create the fireman nor did He create the fire. He allowed them to happen. There is a difference .

ReplyVote up (129)down (156)
Original comment

I believe you may have misunderstood. God did not create the fireman nor did He create the fire. He allowed them to happen. There is a difference .

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1356 days ago)

Yes, I accept there's a difference between "allowing something to happen" and "creating something."

I think my point still stands though that if Himself allowed the firemen to get there, He also allowed the fire to start, take hold and put all those people in danger.

I'll still be trusting in the fire service instead of this allegedly omni-everything being who does or doesn't "allow" things like this.

ReplyVote up (146)down (137)
Original comment

Yes, I accept there's a difference between "allowing something to happen" and "creating something."

I think my point still stands though that if Himself allowed the firemen to get there, He also allowed the fire to start, take hold and put all those people in danger.

I'll still be trusting in the fire service instead of this allegedly omni-everything being who does or doesn't "allow" things like this.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1356 days ago)

Do you also accept that God lets people be tested as well?

ReplyVote up (148)down (125)
Original comment

Do you also accept that God lets people be tested as well?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1356 days ago)

Actually, I don't accept God, so the answer is "no".

If you do (and I'm taking a wild guess that you do), that's fine - you have Faith (with a capital "F") and I don't and we'll never convince each other.

ReplyVote up (149)down (135)
Original comment

Actually, I don't accept God, so the answer is "no".

If you do (and I'm taking a wild guess that you do), that's fine - you have Faith (with a capital "F") and I don't and we'll never convince each other.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1356 days ago)

You don't have faith? So you don't trust your scientists? Did you do 100% of all the research yourself or did you have faith that the scientific community has the right answers? There isn't enough time in your life to research every aspect of science so you have to start relying on other people to do some of the research for you. At some point you have to trust people to give you the right answers. That is Faith.

ReplyVote up (129)down (156)
Original comment

You don't have faith? So you don't trust your scientists? Did you do 100% of all the research yourself or did you have faith that the scientific community has the right answers? There isn't enough time in your life to research every aspect of science so you have to start relying on other people to do some of the research for you. At some point you have to trust people to give you the right answers. That is Faith.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1356 days ago)

Yes I have faith, but I don't have F aith.

The scientists generally put forward hypotheses in ways that are testable and I have the opportunity to reproduce their observable findings (though I'm not about to build any particle accelerators in my garden just yet).

I've yet to see any evidence (let alone reproducible evidence) for omniscient, omnipresent deities. Or levitation. Or trans-substantiation. Or telekinesis. Or immaculate conception. Or the tooth fairy.

ReplyVote up (139)down (143)
Original comment

Yes I have faith, but I don't have F aith.

The scientists generally put forward hypotheses in ways that are testable and I have the opportunity to reproduce their observable findings (though I'm not about to build any particle accelerators in my garden just yet).

I've yet to see any evidence (let alone reproducible evidence) for omniscient, omnipresent deities. Or levitation. Or trans-substantiation. Or telekinesis. Or immaculate conception. Or the tooth fairy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1356 days ago)

You have not seen evidence for many things that scientists state. When was the last time you look through a large telescope to witness the big bang for yourself? I bet you never did but you're relying on what scientists are telling you is the truth. This is what we call faith. I'm not sure why you''re capitalizing "Faith" for religious purposes. As far as I know, there's no difference in the definition if it has a capital letter or not.

ReplyVote up (161)down (147)
Original comment

You have not seen evidence for many things that scientists state. When was the last time you look through a large telescope to witness the big bang for yourself? I bet you never did but you're relying on what scientists are telling you is the truth. This is what we call faith. I'm not sure why you''re capitalizing "Faith" for religious purposes. As far as I know, there's no difference in the definition if it has a capital letter or not.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1355 days ago)

As an atheist troll, you do make good points, much better than from most religious people.

The "evidence" that supports science for the non-scientist atheist, is all around. Planes don't fall out of the sky willy nilly. Your iPhone works. One day you may even get your very own 3D-printed heart.

Atheists don't have faith in science, they have trust. As long as science works, that's the best we have.

ReplyVote up (145)down (140)
Original comment

As an atheist troll, you do make good points, much better than from most religious people.

The "evidence" that supports science for the non-scientist atheist, is all around. Planes don't fall out of the sky willy nilly. Your iPhone works. One day you may even get your very own 3D-printed heart.

Atheists don't have faith in science, they have trust. As long as science works, that's the best we have.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1355 days ago)

Very few religious people would believe that God created the iPhone. Religious people believe we have free will and can invent things that are needed. It was humans that created the airplane and the iPhone but it was God that created the physics that allowed it to happen. Humans did not invent physics, they discover what God has created. As proof of this concept, have you ever seen a human do something that is against God's laws of phyics?

The definition of faith is, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." There is no difference between faith and trust.

ReplyVote up (137)down (140)
Original comment

Very few religious people would believe that God created the iPhone. Religious people believe we have free will and can invent things that are needed. It was humans that created the airplane and the iPhone but it was God that created the physics that allowed it to happen. Humans did not invent physics, they discover what God has created. As proof of this concept, have you ever seen a human do something that is against God's laws of phyics?

The definition of faith is, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." There is no difference between faith and trust.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1355 days ago)

Humans are clever beasts - we created the iPhone and God, but not in that order. Some people I know can't tell the difference.

If God created the laws of physics for us to play around in, then we can safely ignore him. There's no point in worshiping an impotent creator.

There is a massive difference between faith and trust. Faith requires no evidence, trust requires some evidence.

ReplyVote up (131)down (151)
Original comment

Humans are clever beasts - we created the iPhone and God, but not in that order. Some people I know can't tell the difference.

If God created the laws of physics for us to play around in, then we can safely ignore him. There's no point in worshiping an impotent creator.

There is a massive difference between faith and trust. Faith requires no evidence, trust requires some evidence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1355 days ago)

Depending on your religious views, you do not have to worship an impotent creator. John 3:16 clearly says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That's the only requirement and there is nothing that says you have to worship God. However, most religious people love their God and choose to worship Him anyway.

Regarding Faith and no evidence, that can still be said about your science. You have not seen the evidence of the big bang but have Faith that the scientists know what they are doing and you blindly believe that they are telling you the truth. And there is proof of God, you just turn a blind eye to the evidence. There are many people documented to have spoken to God in the Bible. Why don't you accept the Bible as evidence? Probably because you choose to not believe regardless of what evidence we have.

Even today, there are people that have visions and talk to God but you dismiss their claims as being ridiculous. It's only ridiculous because you have not heard from Him yourself so anyone else who has must be crazy.

ReplyVote up (132)down (138)
Original comment

Depending on your religious views, you do not have to worship an impotent creator. John 3:16 clearly says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That's the only requirement and there is nothing that says you have to worship God. However, most religious people love their God and choose to worship Him anyway.

Regarding Faith and no evidence, that can still be said about your science. You have not seen the evidence of the big bang but have Faith that the scientists know what they are doing and you blindly believe that they are telling you the truth. And there is proof of God, you just turn a blind eye to the evidence. There are many people documented to have spoken to God in the Bible. Why don't you accept the Bible as evidence? Probably because you choose to not believe regardless of what evidence we have.

Even today, there are people that have visions and talk to God but you dismiss their claims as being ridiculous. It's only ridiculous because you have not heard from Him yourself so anyone else who has must be crazy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1355 days ago)

So what about what John said at 3:16. I said something different at 7:45.

Regarding faith and no evidence - faith REQUIRES no evidence. If evidence that praying works appeared, then it would be science, because we would study it to figure out what just happened. And if that led to God sitting on a cloud, then so be it. The truth is whatever the truth is, not what you want it to be.

The Bible is not evidence, it is a book.

Personal experience is not evidence, because they are too varied to lead to any meaningful conclusions. In fact, the fact that personal experiences vary so much, suggests there are many gods. I think we made them all up. A religious person thinks we made them all up except for one.

ReplyVote up (157)down (137)
Original comment

So what about what John said at 3:16. I said something different at 7:45.

Regarding faith and no evidence - faith REQUIRES no evidence. If evidence that praying works appeared, then it would be science, because we would study it to figure out what just happened. And if that led to God sitting on a cloud, then so be it. The truth is whatever the truth is, not what you want it to be.

The Bible is not evidence, it is a book.

Personal experience is not evidence, because they are too varied to lead to any meaningful conclusions. In fact, the fact that personal experiences vary so much, suggests there are many gods. I think we made them all up. A religious person thinks we made them all up except for one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1355 days ago)

Faith does not require no evidence. Look up that definition for yourself. You might find some obscure reference to no evidence but that is not the primary definition of faith.

Nobody said praying works. God does not answer all prayers. Obviously if he did, everyone would be rich and healthy and live forever. God answers some prayers. Since it's not as consistent as you proclaimed scientists would like, you don't believe it ever happens. Ask some of your religious friends if they had a prayer answered and most of them will say yes. There's your proof.

Personal experience is definitely evidence and is even used in a court of law. If I saw someone get murdered, my statements will be used as evidence to prove who the killer was. So do you think we should no longer allow people's statements as evidence?

You are also avoiding the point I keep making about you having faith in your scientists. Using your own comments against you, you cannot use their personal experience as evidence so what evidence do you personally have for the big bang method of creation of the universe? Remember now, you cannot use someone else's experience as evidence.

ReplyVote up (146)down (114)
Original comment

Faith does not require no evidence. Look up that definition for yourself. You might find some obscure reference to no evidence but that is not the primary definition of faith.

Nobody said praying works. God does not answer all prayers. Obviously if he did, everyone would be rich and healthy and live forever. God answers some prayers. Since it's not as consistent as you proclaimed scientists would like, you don't believe it ever happens. Ask some of your religious friends if they had a prayer answered and most of them will say yes. There's your proof.

Personal experience is definitely evidence and is even used in a court of law. If I saw someone get murdered, my statements will be used as evidence to prove who the killer was. So do you think we should no longer allow people's statements as evidence?

You are also avoiding the point I keep making about you having faith in your scientists. Using your own comments against you, you cannot use their personal experience as evidence so what evidence do you personally have for the big bang method of creation of the universe? Remember now, you cannot use someone else's experience as evidence.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1355 days ago)

damn, atheist troll pretending to be a religious troll, you're good!

i have to give it to you, you're really good at pretending to be a religious troll!

As for me, i admit to having faith or Faith or FAITH or trust in scientists and not priests, because scientists rely on the scientific method (a solid foundation for the technology we use every day and for the way we make decisions) whilst priests rely only on and ONLY on made up stories and anecdotal evidence... which is a pretty shabby foundation for a moral guidlines and ethical personal beliefs.

I would much rather have FAITH inscience than in any religion that doesn't use the scientific method as the basis for the evidence it provides.

Now you might say that scientists are lying, but then you'd have to provide evidence for a global conspiracy, because the scientific method also requires peer review, so if one is lying, the other scientists will quickly call him out on that lie unless... they're all lying, in which case you'd have to prove a global conspiracy.

Go ahead, but please don't tell me it's the lizard people illuminati amercian jews.

ReplyVote up (139)down (127)
Original comment

damn, atheist troll pretending to be a religious troll, you're good!

i have to give it to you, you're really good at pretending to be a religious troll!

As for me, i admit to having faith or Faith or FAITH or trust in scientists and not priests, because scientists rely on the scientific method (a solid foundation for the technology we use every day and for the way we make decisions) whilst priests rely only on and ONLY on made up stories and anecdotal evidence... which is a pretty shabby foundation for a moral guidlines and ethical personal beliefs.

I would much rather have FAITH inscience than in any religion that doesn't use the scientific method as the basis for the evidence it provides.

Now you might say that scientists are lying, but then you'd have to provide evidence for a global conspiracy, because the scientific method also requires peer review, so if one is lying, the other scientists will quickly call him out on that lie unless... they're all lying, in which case you'd have to prove a global conspiracy.

Go ahead, but please don't tell me it's the lizard people illuminati amercian jews.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1354 days ago)

You agree scientists might be lying but you need to prove a global conspiracy exists? Not a good example. They could be lying but you are unable to prove a global conspiracy exists. Both conditions can be true. Just because I am unable to prove something doesn't mean it is not true.

So my neighbor said she did not get her electric bill but I already received mine. It was strange because I spoke with other neighbors and they all others received their bill. I cannot prove that one neighbor did not get her electric bill (she could be lying and destroyed it) so does that mean she must be lying? Or is it possible that she really did not receive it, is telling the truth but there is no way for me to prove it one way or another? That's the way you worded your comment and you can see how that does not make sense in this context.

ReplyVote up (131)down (141)
Original comment

You agree scientists might be lying but you need to prove a global conspiracy exists? Not a good example. They could be lying but you are unable to prove a global conspiracy exists. Both conditions can be true. Just because I am unable to prove something doesn't mean it is not true.

So my neighbor said she did not get her electric bill but I already received mine. It was strange because I spoke with other neighbors and they all others received their bill. I cannot prove that one neighbor did not get her electric bill (she could be lying and destroyed it) so does that mean she must be lying? Or is it possible that she really did not receive it, is telling the truth but there is no way for me to prove it one way or another? That's the way you worded your comment and you can see how that does not make sense in this context.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1354 days ago)

ok ok atheist troll pretending to be a religious troll, first of all, i do not agree that scientists might be lying, i said that "you might say that" and by that i mean YOU specifically.

As for your example, it's not based on the scientific method. You should look into that, i know you allready know what i'm talking about but you pretend to not know about what it consits of.

I'm not going to argue with an atheist troll that pretends to be a religious troll, so i'm just going to leave this here for the rest of the readers: LINK

PS: you're staring to sound like cengfu*k

ReplyVote up (120)down (130)
Original comment

ok ok atheist troll pretending to be a religious troll, first of all, i do not agree that scientists might be lying, i said that "you might say that" and by that i mean YOU specifically.

As for your example, it's not based on the scientific method. You should look into that, i know you allready know what i'm talking about but you pretend to not know about what it consits of.

I'm not going to argue with an atheist troll that pretends to be a religious troll, so i'm just going to leave this here for the rest of the readers: LINK

PS: you're staring to sound like cengfu*k

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1354 days ago)

Great link. Maybe BoreMeEditor should consider posting it.

Weirdly, I also had moments when I thought ReligiousNut was sounding like cengland0.

ReplyVote up (140)down (123)
Original comment

Great link. Maybe BoreMeEditor should consider posting it.

Weirdly, I also had moments when I thought ReligiousNut was sounding like cengland0.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1353 days ago)

thanks!

i guess trolls start sounding the same way after a while. I think it's mostly because there's a pattern that trolls follow.

ReplyVote up (129)down (117)
Original comment

thanks!

i guess trolls start sounding the same way after a while. I think it's mostly because there's a pattern that trolls follow.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1353 days ago)

Has anyone else noticed the lack of posts from cengland0 lately? Wonder what happened. Did he die?

ReplyVote up (132)down (122)
Original comment

Has anyone else noticed the lack of posts from cengland0 lately? Wonder what happened. Did he die?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1353 days ago)

let's fu*KING HOPE SO!

eaten alive by ducks

ReplyVote up (137)down (147)
Original comment

let's fu*KING HOPE SO!

eaten alive by ducks

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1353 days ago)

I shouldn't laugh because you probably actually mean it, but that was funny.

I look forward to the video when it goes viral.

ReplyVote up (129)down (123)
Original comment

I shouldn't laugh because you probably actually mean it, but that was funny.

I look forward to the video when it goes viral.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1352 days ago)

Still here, just lurking. I no longer feel the need to argue or educate people considering it's a lot of work with no personal benefit to me. Sorry to disappoint that I'm still alive.

ReplyVote up (132)down (130)
Original comment

Still here, just lurking. I no longer feel the need to argue or educate people considering it's a lot of work with no personal benefit to me. Sorry to disappoint that I'm still alive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1352 days ago)

Praise the Lord it's a miracle!

You keep going on about contributing in order to "educate" the Boreme community (or at least trying to). I'm guessing most other users think of it more in terms of "debating."

And isn't part of the problem with your philosophy that you're looking for "personal benefit" rather than "contributing" to the common good, or indeed just having a bit of fun?

ReplyVote up (127)down (155)
Original comment

Praise the Lord it's a miracle!

You keep going on about contributing in order to "educate" the Boreme community (or at least trying to). I'm guessing most other users think of it more in terms of "debating."

And isn't part of the problem with your philosophy that you're looking for "personal benefit" rather than "contributing" to the common good, or indeed just having a bit of fun?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1352 days ago)

I was contibuting to the common good but it's clear people don't want to hear the truth. So I'm not going to spend all that time trying when there is no personal benefit. The boreme crowd is set in their opinions on how things should work and it's like talking to a brick wall.

If I dedicated my spare time picking up trash on the side of the highway for the common good of the community and the people that drove by called me names, gave me the finger, thew out more trash, and just complained about the good thing I thought I was doing, I would stop doing that too.

ReplyVote up (131)down (116)
Original comment

I was contibuting to the common good but it's clear people don't want to hear the truth. So I'm not going to spend all that time trying when there is no personal benefit. The boreme crowd is set in their opinions on how things should work and it's like talking to a brick wall.

If I dedicated my spare time picking up trash on the side of the highway for the common good of the community and the people that drove by called me names, gave me the finger, thew out more trash, and just complained about the good thing I thought I was doing, I would stop doing that too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1352 days ago)

thank you!

please stop contributing, we would be deeply gratefull if would shut the fu*k up and continue to ass finger your ducks for personal benefit.

ReplyVote up (134)down (117)
Original comment

thank you!

please stop contributing, we would be deeply gratefull if would shut the fu*k up and continue to ass finger your ducks for personal benefit.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1352 days ago)

There is a special hell for people like you. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater. He was just responding to my inquiry so there was no need for you to be mean.

I used to enjoy the discussions when he was active. If you didn't like it, there wasn't anyone forcing you to read his comments.

ReplyVote up (114)down (126)
Original comment

There is a special hell for people like you. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater. He was just responding to my inquiry so there was no need for you to be mean.

I used to enjoy the discussions when he was active. If you didn't like it, there wasn't anyone forcing you to read his comments.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1352 days ago)
Latest comment:

how about you choke on a donkey dick?

how about that?

ReplyVote up (135)down (113)
Original comment
Latest comment:

how about you choke on a donkey dick?

how about that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1355 days ago)

In the context of what we are talking about, faith requires no evidence. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be faith because it would be studied. That's what science is - studying stuff so we can figure it all out. Religion is lazy, it is accepting willy nilly whatever is written in a chosen book, even if it blatantly contradicts what we observe.

In the context of what we are talking about, evidence is the result of a scientific prediction. For example, general relativity predicts that time slows down the faster you travel. Evidence is when two atomic clocks are synchronised - one is placed on a plane and flown around. When it lands, the atomic clocks should differ by a specific amount as predicted by general relativity. If they do, that is evidence supporting general relativity. If they don't then general relativity is either wrong or incomplete.

Both the Bible and personal experience predict nothing, nor are they the result of a prediction. Therefore they are not evidence of anything.

I didn't avoid the point about "faith in scientists". Atheists don't have faith in scientists, because atheists require evidence. A layperson cannot even hope to understand general relativity or quantum theory, let alone weigh up the evidence. Laypeople have trust in scientists because science works. It's not perfect, but it's the best evidence we have.

I love the idea of God in the Dock. That would make a great court drama. I wonder which god would go first.

ReplyVote up (144)down (136)
Original comment

In the context of what we are talking about, faith requires no evidence. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be faith because it would be studied. That's what science is - studying stuff so we can figure it all out. Religion is lazy, it is accepting willy nilly whatever is written in a chosen book, even if it blatantly contradicts what we observe.

In the context of what we are talking about, evidence is the result of a scientific prediction. For example, general relativity predicts that time slows down the faster you travel. Evidence is when two atomic clocks are synchronised - one is placed on a plane and flown around. When it lands, the atomic clocks should differ by a specific amount as predicted by general relativity. If they do, that is evidence supporting general relativity. If they don't then general relativity is either wrong or incomplete.

Both the Bible and personal experience predict nothing, nor are they the result of a prediction. Therefore they are not evidence of anything.

I didn't avoid the point about "faith in scientists". Atheists don't have faith in scientists, because atheists require evidence. A layperson cannot even hope to understand general relativity or quantum theory, let alone weigh up the evidence. Laypeople have trust in scientists because science works. It's not perfect, but it's the best evidence we have.

I love the idea of God in the Dock. That would make a great court drama. I wonder which god would go first.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1354 days ago)

"Evidence is the result of a scientific prediction." Not true. I have evidence that there is a monitor on my desk because I can see it there. I cannot predict it will still be there when I leave and get back because any number of things might happen to it. As you can see, evidence has nothing to do with predictions.

Religion does not contradict what we observe. It explains what we observe. Science tries to do that as well but there is a difference of opinion on which answer is right.

I am familiar with the atomic clock on the plane experiment; however, I also believe there are issues with that experiment. Interested in hearing them? Ok. First, you must also know that the density of matter increases as you increase your speed. So the density of the atomic clock on the plane was different than the one on the ground. Since it counts the bounces of cesium atom in a cylinder and that cylinder size has changed, it's clear that this will affect the timing of the clock. The Earth is spinning around the Sun at 67,062 mph. I will guarantee you that plane was not going that fast on its own. So then the Sun is also moving through space at 514,495 mph. Depending if the Earth is going the same direction or the opposite direction, you need to add or subtract those to determine the actual speed the earth is going. Add that to the rotation speed and that's another variable to worry about. All these are much faster than that plane is moving so the little speed of that plane is insignificant and results were probably dependent of other factors. So if your calcuations were actually correct, does that make the general relativity formula correct? Have you heard that your scientists created a "special theory of relativity" because time doesn't seem to fit with the other theories? Also, did you know that your scientists are unable to come up with a formula to eplain the movement for both large and small objects (sub atomic)? This is the holy grail your scientific community is working on -- the unified field theory. You have to use two different formulas and none of them know why. Even your brillian Einstein couldn't get a formula that explains both gravity and electromagnetism.

Your scientists make things up all the time and you have blind faith in what they say. For example, they cannot explain how stars on the outside of galaxies spin around at the same speed as those closer to the center of the galaxy. They do not understand how the observable universe is expanding at an increasing rate. So your scientists created dark matter and dark energy, neither of which has ever been found, to explain this phenomenon.

So do you believe dark matter and dark energy exists? Your answer to this will tell me how much blind faith you really have.

ReplyVote up (124)down (122)
Original comment

"Evidence is the result of a scientific prediction." Not true. I have evidence that there is a monitor on my desk because I can see it there. I cannot predict it will still be there when I leave and get back because any number of things might happen to it. As you can see, evidence has nothing to do with predictions.

Religion does not contradict what we observe. It explains what we observe. Science tries to do that as well but there is a difference of opinion on which answer is right.

I am familiar with the atomic clock on the plane experiment; however, I also believe there are issues with that experiment. Interested in hearing them? Ok. First, you must also know that the density of matter increases as you increase your speed. So the density of the atomic clock on the plane was different than the one on the ground. Since it counts the bounces of cesium atom in a cylinder and that cylinder size has changed, it's clear that this will affect the timing of the clock. The Earth is spinning around the Sun at 67,062 mph. I will guarantee you that plane was not going that fast on its own. So then the Sun is also moving through space at 514,495 mph. Depending if the Earth is going the same direction or the opposite direction, you need to add or subtract those to determine the actual speed the earth is going. Add that to the rotation speed and that's another variable to worry about. All these are much faster than that plane is moving so the little speed of that plane is insignificant and results were probably dependent of other factors. So if your calcuations were actually correct, does that make the general relativity formula correct? Have you heard that your scientists created a "special theory of relativity" because time doesn't seem to fit with the other theories? Also, did you know that your scientists are unable to come up with a formula to eplain the movement for both large and small objects (sub atomic)? This is the holy grail your scientific community is working on -- the unified field theory. You have to use two different formulas and none of them know why. Even your brillian Einstein couldn't get a formula that explains both gravity and electromagnetism.

Your scientists make things up all the time and you have blind faith in what they say. For example, they cannot explain how stars on the outside of galaxies spin around at the same speed as those closer to the center of the galaxy. They do not understand how the observable universe is expanding at an increasing rate. So your scientists created dark matter and dark energy, neither of which has ever been found, to explain this phenomenon.

So do you believe dark matter and dark energy exists? Your answer to this will tell me how much blind faith you really have.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1354 days ago)

Scientific evidence has to be measurable and repeatable, so that it can be verified. Otherwise you get things like 'personal experience', for example: you seeing your monitor and claiming that it exists. It might be a hologram, or you might be hallucinating, or even lying. Fine for pub talk, but too many 'mights' to be of any scientific value. Science does not accept personal experience as credible evidence.

Religion often contradicts what we observe, for example, Creationism contradicts the fossil record.

I don't know whether the 'clocks on a plane' experiment is credible because I don't have the expertise to judge. If you can prove Einstein wrong, you'll be first up for a Nobel Prize, so go for it. I trust the scientists because GPS works. For GPS to be accurate, it factors in time variations on satellites spinning around us, as predicted by relativity.

Scientists don't make things up, they guess. Then they set up measurable and verifiable experiments to find supporting evidence - ie. the results of a prediction. The more evidence, the more likely it is correct. At some point, the evidence is considered overwhelming and the scientific theory becomes scientific fact… unless new evidence comes up suggesting otherwise. That's how science works. It never knows the truth, it just gets closer.

Contrast that with religion which assumes beyond doubt that the truth is written in a book (usually ancient), and then insists all that matters is faith - ie. no evidence is required. Even a 2-year-old shouldn't accept that.

Do I believe dark matter or dark energy exists? I don't think like that. If the best theoretical physicists don't know for sure, then how should I? At the moment, scientists are making educated guesses as to why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and why galaxies hold together when gravity is too weak. And they are designing experiments to look for evidence. I have no reason to believe that scientists are flaunting the scientific method, which is the best rulebook we have for determining "truth". So while science keeps on working, I will keep on trusting.

ReplyVote up (122)down (130)
Original comment

Scientific evidence has to be measurable and repeatable, so that it can be verified. Otherwise you get things like 'personal experience', for example: you seeing your monitor and claiming that it exists. It might be a hologram, or you might be hallucinating, or even lying. Fine for pub talk, but too many 'mights' to be of any scientific value. Science does not accept personal experience as credible evidence.

Religion often contradicts what we observe, for example, Creationism contradicts the fossil record.

I don't know whether the 'clocks on a plane' experiment is credible because I don't have the expertise to judge. If you can prove Einstein wrong, you'll be first up for a Nobel Prize, so go for it. I trust the scientists because GPS works. For GPS to be accurate, it factors in time variations on satellites spinning around us, as predicted by relativity.

Scientists don't make things up, they guess. Then they set up measurable and verifiable experiments to find supporting evidence - ie. the results of a prediction. The more evidence, the more likely it is correct. At some point, the evidence is considered overwhelming and the scientific theory becomes scientific fact… unless new evidence comes up suggesting otherwise. That's how science works. It never knows the truth, it just gets closer.

Contrast that with religion which assumes beyond doubt that the truth is written in a book (usually ancient), and then insists all that matters is faith - ie. no evidence is required. Even a 2-year-old shouldn't accept that.

Do I believe dark matter or dark energy exists? I don't think like that. If the best theoretical physicists don't know for sure, then how should I? At the moment, scientists are making educated guesses as to why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and why galaxies hold together when gravity is too weak. And they are designing experiments to look for evidence. I have no reason to believe that scientists are flaunting the scientific method, which is the best rulebook we have for determining "truth". So while science keeps on working, I will keep on trusting.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
ReligiousNut ReligiousNut (1353 days ago)

"Science does not accept personal experience as credible evidence." So why do you keep using the personal experiences of scientists to prove your point about Global Warming when arguing with guest123456789?

"Religion often contradicts what we observe, for example, Creationism contradicts the fossil record." Not true. It's common knowledge in the religious community that God created the earth with the appearance of age.

"If you can prove Einstein wrong, you'll be first up for a Nobel Prize, so go for it." Excellent argument that proves your big bang theory is correct -- Not! I can use the same concept about your inability to prove God does not exist. You can win a lot of awards if you can prove that too. Nobody has ever and nobody will ever be able to prove He does not exist. If your science is so great, why can't you disprove something so basic?

"Scientists don't make things up, they guess." That does not instill me with a lot of confidence in your scientific community. I don't want to put my entire soul and ability to go to heaven on a scientist's guess.

"Contrast that with religion which assumes beyond doubt that the truth is written in a book" Is that so? Can you tell me what book is used by the Bole-Maru religion? How far back do you think religion goes? Think any pre-date paper or the Bible?

ReplyVote up (123)down (132)
Original comment

"Science does not accept personal experience as credible evidence." So why do you keep using the personal experiences of scientists to prove your point about Global Warming when arguing with guest123456789?

"Religion often contradicts what we observe, for example, Creationism contradicts the fossil record." Not true. It's common knowledge in the religious community that God created the earth with the appearance of age.

"If you can prove Einstein wrong, you'll be first up for a Nobel Prize, so go for it." Excellent argument that proves your big bang theory is correct -- Not! I can use the same concept about your inability to prove God does not exist. You can win a lot of awards if you can prove that too. Nobody has ever and nobody will ever be able to prove He does not exist. If your science is so great, why can't you disprove something so basic?

"Scientists don't make things up, they guess." That does not instill me with a lot of confidence in your scientific community. I don't want to put my entire soul and ability to go to heaven on a scientist's guess.

"Contrast that with religion which assumes beyond doubt that the truth is written in a book" Is that so? Can you tell me what book is used by the Bole-Maru religion? How far back do you think religion goes? Think any pre-date paper or the Bible?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1353 days ago)

You were doing so well as an atheist troll. You've obviously run out of ideas because now you sound like a religious nut.

I have no idea how you think I use scientists' personal experiences when talking about global warming. Maybe you can enlighten me.

"It's common knowledge in the religious community that God created the earth with the appearance of age." Yeah right. Once you start using the "God works in mysterious ways" line, you've lost the argument. I never thought you'd stoop so low.

It's common knowledge in the atheist community that man created god, not the other way round. That idea, that man created god, fits what we observe today, and throughout history. Try it.

"Scientists don't make things up, they guess." Actually I was being poetic. I nicked it from Richard Feynman when he described science that way. LINK Which if you think about it, that is actually what happens, albeit a well educated guess.

And your point about the book, that was not the point. The point was that religion assumes the truth first, and then tries to interpret the evidence in a way that fits - perfect example: "It's common knowledge in the religious community that God created the earth with the appearance of age."

Here's a thought. If your god is real, then my god must be made up. And since there are gods galore, then most gods must be made up. Unless of course the universe has many gods, a bit like how we have superheroes.

ReplyVote up (121)down (109)
Original comment

You were doing so well as an atheist troll. You've obviously run out of ideas because now you sound like a religious nut.

I have no idea how you think I use scientists' personal experiences when talking about global warming. Maybe you can enlighten me.

"It's common knowledge in the religious community that God created the earth with the appearance of age." Yeah right. Once you start using the "God works in mysterious ways" line, you've lost the argument. I never thought you'd stoop so low.

It's common knowledge in the atheist community that man created god, not the other way round. That idea, that man created god, fits what we observe today, and throughout history. Try it.

"Scientists don't make things up, they guess." Actually I was being poetic. I nicked it from Richard Feynman when he described science that way. LINK Which if you think about it, that is actually what happens, albeit a well educated guess.

And your point about the book, that was not the point. The point was that religion assumes the truth first, and then tries to interpret the evidence in a way that fits - perfect example: "It's common knowledge in the religious community that God created the earth with the appearance of age."

Here's a thought. If your god is real, then my god must be made up. And since there are gods galore, then most gods must be made up. Unless of course the universe has many gods, a bit like how we have superheroes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guest82734 (1354 days ago)

Killing is only evil for humans! God is allowed to kill - because he can give life! He is free from laws - as they are for puny humans!

ReplyVote up (110)down (102)
Original comment

Killing is only evil for humans! God is allowed to kill - because he can give life! He is free from laws - as they are for puny humans!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Tiny Tim (1357 days ago)

It's all OK everyone. He has his safety helmet and jacket on.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

It's all OK everyone. He has his safety helmet and jacket on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1356 days ago)

Hang on, Boreme. What's going on? They've all stopped saying "OMG" and seem to be playing instruments now

ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment

Hang on, Boreme. What's going on? They've all stopped saying "OMG" and seem to be playing instruments now

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1356 days ago)

Can't be an American construction worker. Otherwise the firetruck would have tipped.

ReplyVote up (71)down (147)
Original comment

Can't be an American construction worker. Otherwise the firetruck would have tipped.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Man risks life to save wild rabbit
Man risks life to save wild rabbit
James O'Brien: Why Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital
James O'Brien: Why Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital
TYT - Firefighters can't contain California wildfires
TYT - Firefighters can't contain California wildfires
Racehorses panic in San Luis Rey fire
Racehorses panic in San Luis Rey fire
DentureDonald fights to keep his dentures under control
DentureDonald fights to keep his dentures under control