God's Existence To Be Proven!!!!

[Lukus]

you guys are forgetting one major part of science.

Um... No.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Sure, only people who believe in god are moral.

so only religious people have a sense of morals? haha, how grand...

Give me a fucking break!

Oh, spare me the bullshit.

get off your high horse, religionboy.

As for a posteriori, you'd definitely need something up your posterior. Ha ha! Get it?
Unfortunately there is this law against butt-rape.

Good thing you prove yourselves wrong with every statement you make, otherwise I'd have to explain it to you, and that would probably result in a blood clog on your end of the shit casing you call skull.

Where the hell do you people get off saying faithfull people don't beleive in science or law, is way beyond me. Science and fact are the things I praise the most. I had military training, for Christ sakes, and now I'm studying Law. What makes you think I even READ a 1700 old book?

Remain ignorant.

 

[Tagaziel]

Darwin believed in God and attributed evolution to him.

/funnyfact

 

[Onisuzume]

I had military training, for Christ sakes, and now I'm studying Law. What makes you think I even READ a 1700 old book?

May I suggest that you read the Art of War and the book of Lord Shang? Both of them are at least 1700 years old. :p
And afaik; The Art of War is still an important book in today's militairy.
While the Book of Lord Shang can more or less be compared to Machiavelli's The Prince. Yet writen almost 2 millenia before Machiavelli wrote his.

Also, some believe that Sun Tzu may have been one of the earliest atheists.

Darwin believed in God and attributed evolution to him.

Funny how the church was against it.

 

[Kahgan]

ODIN!

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

May I suggest that you read the Art of War

Of course I read it, I even have the pocket edition to carry around when I need to. Rarely so far, but it always sparks curiosity from those around me.

Both of them are at least 1700 years old

We were, of course, talking about something else, and the 1700 is a statement made by someone else.

The Master's Art of War is much older than that.

And of course, like Grizzly mentioned in a subtle post, a lot of scientists, no need to refer to Darwin here, we have modern ones who beleive in God, either way.

I was just pointing out something else, that a clueless berk is just another clueless berk. "Why beleive in nothing ?", one emo said once.

Sadly, in both sides of the science and religion communities, many can't seem to understand they can co-exist. Limited thinking, limited people.

 

[Pariah]

Right, and what's the essential difference there?

This was edited:

Also, I said created us. Not "got the ball rolling by jerking off in the primordial ooze and then let it morph into humanity."

If you still can't tell the difference between absolute intent and random creation, then there's really no point in bothering trying to explain it to you.

Also, since when does what they secretly think matter, as opposed to what people say?

Sorry if I prefer honesty over placation.

No, it isn't. Because as I said, it has been *proven* to be that accurate. The fact that I didn't care to look up the exact numbers does nothing to invalidate the statement.

Actually, yes it does. Your inability to do any actual research and just make wildly subjective statements tells me that you're trying to feed me large quantities of bullshit. The fact that you use the term "proven" when not even evolutionary scientists would be so arrogant as to say such a thing tells me volumes about how much you don't know in regards to the scientific methods of researching evolution.

Carbon dating is, in fact, very accurate but can be inaccurate due to external effects and variances for certain time periods. Of course, what most people who criticise carbon dating fail to realise is that the scientists actually take into account these variances. And when taken over a huge sample such as, oh, I don't know, tens of thousands of dinosaur fossils that give consistent results, then any variance is effectively eliminated.

What you fail to realize is that because the scientists have never had the perfect environment or geological sample to work with, there's no way for them to make a credible assumption on their age. You say that they "take into account these variances" when they have no way of doing so. Compensating for geo-site corruption, which they have no way of measuring, is impossible without adding one's own assumption--Which is only educated purely by their own expectations on the matter. Because their expectations are based on the unsubstantiated theory that the world is 5 billion years old, their conclusions make a complete circuit by being dependent on C14 all over again. Due to this circuitous nature, the "findings" are fallacious. As I said previously: This is all circuler reasoning.

If you plan to continue this route, you're going to have to explain me exactly what it is they would do to actually compensate for "variances," as well as tell me how they would work. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know there was some form of dating that was more accurate than Carbon dating.

There's isn't. Which is exactly why it's only prudent not to say things like, "I can prove that these bones are a million years old," when no dating method can be proven to do such a thing.

Just because you choose to over-estimate C14 based solely on its status as the only dating method available (not counting Radiometric), that wouldn't make its exclusive existence a testament to the perfect accuracy you think it might have.

Wrong. They use rocks very near to the fossils, making the effect of shifting within layers largely irrelevant.

Obviously you’re not aware of what the earth’s layers are made of *cough*rocks*coughs*. What do you think shifts as well when the volume of dirt is disturbed by pressure from the surface (both kinetic and radioactive)? The fossils shift to different positions constantly, meaning that they move through many variously aged sedimentary layers. Even if the rocks could be dated accurately, it’s incorrect to assume that fossils have been around the same layers and rocks that they were found in.

If a seashell was buried underneath a sandy beach, all of the pressure put on the rocks by temperature variances, waves, and beach-goers wouldn’t allow it to stay in the same place it was buried forever. On a long enough timeline, the shell would sink farther down into the earth or even move horizontally through the landmass. The sand-grains it eventually ended up adjacent to could be either younger or older than the sand mass it was previously in.

Furthermore, since this is done with almost all fossils and they give consistent results should tell you that the assumed inaccuracy is, in fact, non-existent.

You’re trying to tell me that the results are consistent…..How does consistency prove accuracy?

Carbon doesn't just shift around, though, especially not within a single rock.

Carbon goes where it’s led. Organic material isn’t omnipresent around rocks in fossils so much as it is within the fossils.

Again: sample size and consistent results.

Again: This knee-jerk is too vague to qualify as an argument.

So, wait, your argument is:
A) C-14 dating is inaccurate.
B) If a scientist tries to verify the accuracy of his reading through other means he's doing a *bad* thing.

I'm sorry, but that does not make any sense.

Their "means" consists of guessing. And before you try telling me that they're educated guesses, please try to understand that the education is supposed to come from the dating method in question. How can it if the scientists re-modulate the results using nothing but their own intuition? I mean, what frame of reference do they have if they conceed that they can't trust the results of the C-14 tests????

When the tests they do don’t reveal what they expect or want to see, they erase the conclusion and replace it with their own assumed conclusion—Thus my point: Why do a test in the first place if you were just going to pluck a date out of thin air anyway? How exactly would you like it if a fundamentalist decided that the Salem Witch Trials couldn’t have actually occurred since it’s so unlike their views of Christianity?

Every time someone assumes the age of something based solely on expectation (even if it contradicts the dating method they’ve chosen to rest their credibility on), they are re-writing history and abusing the protocols of science so as to give their side of the argument more legitimacy.

I'm sorry, I linked you to a site that gives arguments as to its existence and counter-arguments to commonly heard arguments against its existence. I'm sorry if my mind-reading skills have not yet evolved enough to know what reasons you had for doubting the existence of a Geologic Column.

The article you led me to did nothing to argue the existence of GCs. All it did was say they existed and then proceeded to describe them in the typical fashion I already alluded to: By assuming the layers they dig through (note that I do not say “slice from the earth’s crust”) are apart of an elaborate and absolute structure. They make a lot of conclusions about the evidentiary crust they corrupt (by digging through the layers); that, all on its own, isn’t going to give credence to the GC idea construct.

Oh gee, so much thanks for reading that page *that gives examples aplenty of geologic columns*.

Yes, I know it gives examples. Just like how museums give examples of the fossil record with more than a hundred past species constructs. At the same time however, about 85% of that record is left blank because it’s an assumed structure with not a proven fossil to its name.

Again: carbon-dating.

Again: Stop saying “again” and take a moment to analyze exactly what kind of conditions would be needed to make C14 work correctly. Then hold the requirements up to cases such as the australopithecine where half-life is impossible to measure.

Yeah, thanks for explaining the principle behind Radiocarbon dating. Again.

No problem. And I take it that, because you’re appreciative of the explanation, you’ve decided to change your mind and agree with me on the fallacy of evolutionist dating methods:

A more critical example of this is Radiometric Dating, a type of system used by evolutionists to lend credence to the fossils’ ancient dates. Radiometric Dating is based on the fact that atoms of certain elements break down into other elements (known as “daughter” elements) at relatively constant rates. The decay of these naturally occurring radioactive elements can (in principle) be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil. In practice, however, Radiometric Dating of fossils (like the Geologic Column itself), is based on circular reasoning. This is true because the decay of an element cannot be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil unless both the original and final amounts of radioactive element in the sample are known. Although the present composition of the sample is easily measured, there is no way to measure how much the “parent” and “daughter” elements were originally in the sample. Nor is there any way to measure how much of the “parent” or “daughter” element entered or escaped the sample during the decay process. Thus the scientist must estimate the amount based on several guesses. Because the estimates made by most scientists are usually based on evolutionary assumptions, circular reasoning enters the argument once again: The assumption of evolution is used to estimate the original ratio of “parent” and “daughter” elements, which is used to calculate a date, which “proves” the assumption of evolution. In other words, radiometric dates are largely determined by the assumptions of the person doing the dating. In fact, if evolutionary assumptions are replaced with creationist assumptions, the dates given by several dating methods often become more or less consistent with the Genesis chronology. Because of the subjective nature of Radiometric Dating, if a date is obtained that does not fit the Geologic Column, it is a simple matter to adjust one’s guesses to the evolutionary time scale. The hypothesis of evolution determines which dates are “acceptable”; dates outside this range are deemed erroneous and discarded.

Note the highlighted segment.

I’m sorry if I like to follow the rules of intelligent debate by making an attempt to explain the science before I use it as my argument.

Wait, so now the entire theory of evolution is based on the Piltdown Man?

I’m saying that Piltdown Man founded evolution’s fame and perceived credibility. It’s never a good sign when a sociological and cultural phenomenon is promoted by an incredible source; it’s very telling about how desperate the scientific community is to believe something other than the idea that a higher intelligence had a hand in the creation of mankind.

Whether or not the Hopeful Monster theories stopped after Piltdown Man was debunked is not the point I’m trying to make here. I’m pointing out that proponents of evolutionary theory have a history of making up facts about history and the way the world works. When holding this in conjunction with the C14 debacles, it suddenly becomes clear exactly how the theory was able to survive this long…If you get my drift. The way evolutionary scientists pluck “evidence of evolution” from wherever they feel necessary is no different than someone using blizzards as evidence of Global Warming (as has been done numerous times) or a particularly misguided zealot assuming a skin condition is evidence of stigmata. It’s all very retarded.

In the end, my primary point is that the longevity of evolution’s survival and exploits isn’t based on evidence, which you say exists, but rather the recognition it has stolen through its many mis-definitions and frauds.

How's that for hyperbole? Evolution hadn't even been thought up a few centuries ago.

I don’t actually mean a full 200 years. I mean that it reaches into the 1800s.

Yeah, neat. Except that there are multiple different and seperate findings of Homo Habilis.

And how does that negate my argument?

Oh goodie, nitpicking instead of answering an argument.

I honestly do not know what the phrase “abuse of evidence” means. Explain it to me and I’ll refrain from nit-pickery.

And this is proven how, exactly?
Oh wait, it isn't. We know *nothing* about Noah, other than what is written in the bible.

Telling about how his son raped him while he was drunk on wine wasn’t enough for you?

First of all: I used the term “evidence.” Not “proof.”

Second of all: That’s exactly the point. Because the Bible’s scripture knew about a world-wide flood before any archeologist or geologist, Genesis, and everything within it, is assigned historical credibility. Noah was in Genesis scripture. So…

Furthermore, you try to make a case against interpreting what Noah did by saying we don’t know him; should I take this to mean that you knew individuals such as Genhgis(sp) Kahn and Constantine simply because they’re in secular history books? I’m not sure if you realize this, but every iota of documented history that spans past 1.5 centuries undergoes a state of information decay. Seeing as how these stories we hear of the past are constantly re-interpreted, refined, and re-printed, the Bible certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on being an old and unaccountable book….Except for the historians laced to it of course.

If you want to continue down this path of questioning accuracy based on age, be prepared to compromise the credibility of secular history books.

You’re correct regarding Noah and his families’ location though; there’s very little talk of location within the Bible. However, considering they were the first to leave the Crescent, that narrows things down a bit.

Whether or not Genesis is older than these other civilisations is entirely irrelevant, and does nothing to either validate or invalidate any parts of the Bible.

“Second of all: That’s exactly the point. Because the Bible’s scripture knew about a world-wide flood before any archeologist or geologist, Genesis, and everything within it, is assigned historical credibility. Noah was in Genesis scripture. So…”

I'm sorry, did I deny that parts of the bible were true anywhere?

I suppose you didn’t. I’m just making sure you know the specifics of modern archeology in accordance with the Bible’s account.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought that C-14 dating was very unreliable, especially when people want to find certain results.

It’s a little hard to see, but I did say that I don’t think C-14 is a totally hopeless tool. I highlighted the fact that evolutionists were using it wrong and ignoring the flaws it could have in some environments—Also going so far as to disregard dates they refuse to believe.

In the past, I have assigned trust to C-14 tests done by evolutionists. Although, all of the materials for testing were taken from very cold climates; one of the bigger reasons I don't buy into australopithecine is because of the hot environment, which corrupts the test.

In any event, I only included it for your sake because I’m sure you still explicitly trust it. Also, just for your peace of mind, a secularist was the one who ran the test (although, she didn’t personally believe its readings).

It does?
That's neat.
You are aware that vast mountain chains exist under oceans as well, aren't you?

Yes. But what does that have to do with the land-mass being versatile enough for the water to maintain a presence that reached Iran and Europe?

Yeah that's neat. Where did I deny any of this, and what, exactly, does this prove?

I basically just wanted to let you know where I was coming from, but I more poignantly wanted to demonstrate that Genesis’ allusion to a great flood that covered the earth’s surface doesn’t exactly hold symmetry with other cultures’ tales of much smaller floods.

Er..what sweeping statements? You mean the 'sweeping' statement that one part of the bible being based in reality does not mean that the rest of the bible is also true?
If you call that a sweeping statement, apparently the concept of 'logic' eludes you.

There you go again assuming that just “one part” of the Bible gives it historical credibility. I mentioned Tulles and Sodom&Gomorrah (aside from the Deluge and Tanniyan) findings for the sake of expanding on this since both are regarded in the most controversial segment of the Bible. After that, the second half of the Old Testament is more or less inarguable according to modern standards (not including Exodus, but I could go on for pages on that subject).

No, it can't. In fact, Noah can't in any way be proven to have existed.

Of course they can’t be proven. I didn’t use the term “proof.” I said “evidenced.”

And yes, it can.

Wait, the longevity of a document is now a measure of its accuracy?

Not longevity. Sustainability.

Wrong on both counts. The Bible is accepted to be in part a historical document documenting word-of-mouth stories and in some cases possible contemporary stories. In a similar way the Iliad is a historical document in that it describes the Trojan war (which most likely did happen). That doesn't mean that everything contained therein is actually factual or assumed to be factual.

You’re forgetting the fact that those stories have modern day tangible credence attached to them. I’ve gone at length to point out the archeological aspect of it. Furthermore, I never tried to prove to you that miraculous events depicted within the Bible actually happened; that would be fruitless. All I have done is associate the document’s contents with current discoveries that allude to its credibility.

Please to note that building a huge boat is not outside the confines of reality even if it is implausible. However, if both secularists and theologians alike agree on the Deluge’s occurrence, it’s rather difficult to say that humanity would have survived without one. Could there be other explanations for us still being here after that? Perhaps. But the very document that knew about it first hand also gives us a hint (i.e. the Ark), and Homer couldn’t have written about it if he had drown.

No it doesn't. You don't think that something like the Deluge wouldn't be passed down?

It’s not a matter of “wouldn’t,” but rather of “couldn’t.” A worldwide flood basically pertains to human extinction. If there was a book out there that had exclusive knowledge of it before anyone else, that would mean it was passed down through the same channels that wrote said book. And since they would know more about than we would, that gives the document credibility.

In short: It was passed down. You just don’t like the source it was passed down from.

Besides that, you've yet to point out this "Tanniyan" you are talking about.

I apologize.

Also, I’ve been spelling it wrong. It’s “Tanniyn.” They’re mentioned about 30 times throughout the Old Testament. The more direct translation for the word is “dragon.”

The one that stands out the most is Job 40:15-24

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.


The entire description given in these verses fit certain types of dinosaurs very well. But we're going to zero in on one particular verse. It's in verse 17 it says, "He moveth his tail like a cedar:".

This verse alone should be enough to put the whole issue to rest as to whether or not God is describing a dinosaur to Job in this verse. Keep in mind, God is talking to Job about a living animal, that Job is familiar with. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree? Before that question can be answered, it must first be determined how big a cedar tree is. We obtained information on this from two different sources.

First, we looked at what the Bible had to say about cedar trees to see if it would give us any clues as to how big the authors of the Bible thought they were. Second, we contacted the university of Arizona and asked them. The results of both inquires appear below.

How big does the Bible say cedar trees are?

Psalms 92:12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon (would this verse make much sense if it were referring to a small or medium sized tree?)

Isaiah 2:13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, [that are] high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

Isaiah 37:24 By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars…

Ezekiel 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set [it]; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant [it] upon an high mountain and eminent:

Ezekiel 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

Amos 2:9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height [was] like the height of the cedars, and he [was] strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.

There is no question that the authors of the Bible considered cedar trees to be quite large. Some Christians who've tried to compromise with evolutionists have claimed that the verses describing Behemoth are describing a crocodile, hippopotamus or elephant. But those creatures don't have tails the size of a cedar tree. The only creatures known to us today that had tails as big as a cedar tree were the largest of the known dinosaurs.

What one tree expert at the University of Arizona had to say

The following e-mail was sent and responded to in June, 1997:

Hello. I've searched everywhere I can think of on the internet and can't find the information I'm looking for. I'm trying to find out how big a cedar tree might have been around the 1,000 - 2,000 BC time frame (when the book of "Job" was written in the Bible). The reason is because there is a Bible verse that describes an animal that moves its tail like a cedar tree (Job 40:15-19). It seems that only a dinosaur fits this description.

=======
The reply
=======

From: "Henri Grissino-Mayer"
Organization: Tree-ring Lab, Uni. of Arizona
To: Gary Martin
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:42:55 -0700
Subject: Re: How large are cedar trees?
Priority: normal

Hi Gary ,

Well this certainly is one of the more original questions I've ever answered. In the Middle East, there are several species of trees that would qualify for "cedar" status. Basically, any juniper-like tree can be called a cedar. However, the tree most likely referred to is the famous well-known species called "Cedrus libani", or "cedar-of-Lebanon," a beautiful and stately tree that grows in the Middle East. These trees can be quite large! I worked on cross-sections from one tree that were about 1.5 meters in diameter. The tree can attain heights greater than 40 meters with a diameter greater than 3 meters! The tree is a favorite nursery tree and is now planted all over the world, even many here in Tucson, Arizona. Hope this helps.

Henri

Henri D. Grissino-Mayer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA

Again, we see evidence that a cedar tree is huge. It should be clear from the above verses in Job that the creature God is describing is most likely a dinosaur.

This is, admittedly, a copy and paste job on my part since all my research on Tanniyn has been free-hand up to this point (and trust me when I say it makes me gag to have to quote christiananswers.com). But this should explain things to you on the matter.

I know what a falsifiable statement is. Evolution is one, for instance.

No. It’s not. But that’s half the argument anyway.

Er, yeah, but not an actual dog. In fact, the existence of animal-phyla but not the animals themselves would sooner point to evolution than not.

…..? I beg your pardon?

The whole controversy behind Pre-Cambrian is the fact the animal-phyla isn’t where it should be—It’s not even in the state it should be let alone any sort of identifiable state at all. According to evolutionist standards, a complex organic design such as a modern day animal-phyla being present in the Pre-Cambria is contradictory to the theory of evolution.

...
Inheritence is *mutually exclusive* with evolution?
What the fuck?

Yes. Mendell’s discovery of genetics has nothing to do with evolution. But because people are so convinced that it’s truth, they violate falsifiable etiquette so they can absorb the credibility of genetic inheritance and, by mere association, give evolution credibility by default.

The problem with this is that genetics and observable phenomenon such as natural selection cannot be its own evidence. And yet, this is what is required of inheritance if people insist on co-mingling the two.

Right, thanks for explaining the math there, sparky. But sadly, your explanation is flawed in that with this calculation, every single evolutionary path has an equal chance of occurring.

Also, I don't see you citing actual numbers or doing calculations to logically prove that the timespan is too small. All you do is cite a formula that could give a hypothetical chance of this specific situation occurring (but you fail to note that any other specific situation has an equal chance of occurring). Neat, but it doesn't prove anything.

You’re correct in that they all have an equal amount of time allotted to them in which to evolve. The problem with this is the fact that the time frame is only equal due to mutation’s state of randomness. The point here is that the odds for a random macro-mutation to create a new species in any amount of time is beyond astronomical, and yet evolutionary scientists try to convince us that all the species’ listed in the fossil record (this includes the hundreds of creatures that have been theorized to exist without the use of bones to help back it up) actually evolved up to a point around…..I’m not even sure when they think it stopped. In about 10,000 years of (secularly accepted) documented history, we haven’t had one biological offshoot. Considering the phenomenon that produced so many species on the fossil record throughout millions of years, don’t you find that rather odd?

Also, the formula isn’t hypothetical. All of those factors are required before you can actually number crunch the dates and discern when all the species’ could have evolved. The satire here is that the formula itself is impossible to apply since an evolutionist has no frame of reference as to when an animal is likely to evolve since random macros is just that: Random.

Counter-example: dog-breeding, those neat little species Darwin discovered, genetically inherited diseases.

Again: Inheritance is not evolution.

Even if you wanted to further continue such a case, you’d have to prove that the diseases were actually reinforced rather than simply passed on like in the case of deaf people.

Yeah, that's not how it works. Where these genes dominant or recessive? Were they perhaps located on the Y chromosome and hence not passed down to daughters?
Let me guess: you don't know, because they couldn't actually pinpoint the gene, right?

What are you going on about? I think I know but I just wanna make sure.

I'm sorry, but where, exactly, does anyone claim that evolution solely affects exterior changes,

*shrug* I dunno….I sure didn’t if that’s what you’re implying. I just said that-that was being fallaciously used by the evolutionist side of the argument; I didn’t say that’s all there is to the idea.

and why would the fact that no such changes have been observed contradict evolution?

It may not contradict it as just a theory. It does, however, contradict it as a falsifiable theory.

You do realise that is false, do you?
Archeologists have found the oldest surviving pottery in Japan. Dated to the 11th millenium BC.
In addition to that, the methods of farming are sometimes attributed to Japan during the same period. (10.000 BC)

And then, ofcourse, are the native australians.
Through various means, scientists have concluded that they arrived there about 40.000 years ago.

There have been many claims and many dates assumed by a lot of people on a lot of things, but do you have any actual proof to work with? A source maybe?

I remember once upon a time when someone tried to argue the same point using structures found in China. That turned out to be false.

Oh, spare me the bullshit.
Sure, only people who believe in god are moral. Sure, without god, it would be Hell on Earth! Give me a fucking break! Before your pathetic "don't do that because god doesn't like it" religion, there were morals too and people were doing fine.

Judea founded morality while Greece founded ethics.

Please don't confuse the two lest you come off as anymore of an absolute retard.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Wow. That is, without a doubt, the longest "Quote - retort" post I've ever seen.

Too bad the subject matter is so fucking boring, otherwise I might read it.

 

[SuAside]

Wow. That is, without a doubt, the longest "Quote - retort" post I've ever seen.

Too bad the subject matter is so fucking boring, otherwise I might read it.

i've seen more of these in the past (they happened quite frequently here), and so you know in the future, the correct way to express what you said is:

tl;dr