Another porn star that is an atheist is Bree Olsen.
Quote:
Olson has said she is an atheist, saying in one interview "I'm atheist. I know that when you die, there's no heaven, so that really bums me out. I wish I could be Christian and say I'm going to heaven but I know I'm not. It sucks to know the truth."
__________________
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
... I'd feel like a caveman, if they existed ... and they didn't ...
- Ned Flanders
I wish I could be Christian and say I'm going to heaven but I know I'm not. It sucks to know the truth.
Hey, she's right: "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten." -Ecclesiastes 9:5
__________________
Matt Ryan is the truth.
There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them. -George Orwell
Hey, she's right: "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten." -Ecclesiastes 9:5
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Isaiah 34:7
God always exacts an accounting from his enemies.
__________________
Matt Ryan is the truth.
There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe them. -George Orwell
The part that has always confused me is Atheists have to believe that there IS a God even if you don't believe IN God and all his teachings, otherwise you wouldn't try to explain the disbelief in something that doesn't exist. Correct? Just curious on why that is.
The part that has always confused me is Atheists have to believe that there IS a God even if you don't believe IN God and all his teachings, otherwise you wouldn't try to explain the disbelief in something that doesn't exist. Correct? Just curious on why that is.
Hang on, I'm going to put my head in the microwave for a few minutes so I can understand what you just wrote.
Be back shortly!
__________________
As the last legion makes it's way to the skies, I can see in their eyes
They've already died inside, but as for the outside, I'll take their ****ing heads!
I will never be what they want me to
I live by my own path in life, no turning back now
I won't be held down, forced into a shallow grave built upon their empty ways
There's no turning back
Kirisute Gomen - Trivium
The part that has always confused me is Atheists have to believe that there IS a God even if you don't believe IN God and all his teachings, otherwise you wouldn't try to explain the disbelief in something that doesn't exist. Correct? Just curious on why that is.
That doesn't make any sense, I would say most atheists would call 'God' some kind of psychological element of the (limbic) brain, nothing more, that the Universe/Nature is in itself all that is necessary to explain our origins.
__________________
What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others. - Confucius
Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. - Bruce Lee
The part that has always confused me is Atheists have to believe that there IS a God even if you don't believe IN God and all his teachings, otherwise you wouldn't try to explain the disbelief in something that doesn't exist. Correct? Just curious on why that is.
__________________
Milk is for babies. When you grow up you have to drink beer.
Not trying to offend anyone. I'm a Christian. I believe in Christ and you believe there is no Christ. So I'm trying to understand how you call Atheism, Atheism if you do not believe there is no God. Christianity is believing in Christ. Muslims believe in mohammad, etc., etc. It's showing acknowledgement, and is the name for a religion and a belief. How do you title a non-belief in a god. That shows you realize the possibilties of a god. Correct? I'm trying to word this so it makes more sense. Again, not trying to offend anyone.
The theory of childhood, also known as child origin, is a damnable, loathsome and indefensible lie. How can any thinking person suppose all humans used to be babies once?
There is no development path from babies to adults, no transitional forms between these two species. Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body. Can you? No? Not even a bearded toddler? No adults with unfused skullbones, outside unfortunate disorders? Not even a tiny little newborn girl suddenly sprouting a respectable bosom? You can't find them, because they don't exist. There isn't a single transitional form between children and adults, and you will never find one because the theory simply is an unscientific lie.
The development of children has been well-researched in our six-month study following a sample of one thousand children and adults of various ages. We have conclusively proven that while there are minor changes in features like height and body fat, and replacement of deciduous teeth with permanent teeth, incontravertibly still every creature in the study that started out as a child had only slightly more adult features at the end of the observation period than at its beginning. Children and adults are separate kinds and there will never be sufficient changes to change one into the other. We reject any evidence from longer-term studies as we believe the laws of physics have changed within the last year.
To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. We have observed how children behave. If we acted like small children we'd all be demanding and impatient, and we'd be cheating, lying, and stealing from each other all the time. If the theory of childhood were true there would be no morality, and with no morality to build one on, no society. Childhood is a wicked lie used by charlatans to justify evils such as public schools.
There is no consensus on the theory of childhood in the scientific community. We should teach the controversy. Our children will be served well to learn that the prospect of them becoming adults is merely a theoretical idea. Many children come from families that do not subscribe to the theory of childhood, and they could be disturbed if the theory were taught as fact.
__________________
Guaranteed to be grade A insane or get your money not given back!
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=273625141
Out of all my goals for 2009, a BW barbell bench for reps is the most insane one that I have.
Not trying to offend anyone. I'm a Christian. I believe in Christ and you believe there is no Christ. So I'm trying to understand how you call Atheism, Atheism if you do not believe there is no God. Christianity is believing in Christ. Muslims believe in mohammad, etc., etc. It's showing acknowledgement, and is the name for a religion and a belief. How do you title a non-belief in a god. That shows you realize the possibilties of a god. Correct? I'm trying to word this so it makes more sense. Again, not trying to offend anyone.
There are possibilities of gods as much as there are possibilities of unicorns. I don't believe that either of them exist, and I'm not sure why that belief means that they somehow do exist.
Are you arguing that the word is unnecessary? If so, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, as the rest of the world hasn't accepted atheism as readily as aunicornism, we still rely on this terminology to separate us. Once belief in gods is as widely discredited as belief in unicorns, we will no longer need the term.
__________________
As the last legion makes it's way to the skies, I can see in their eyes
They've already died inside, but as for the outside, I'll take their ****ing heads!
I will never be what they want me to
I live by my own path in life, no turning back now
I won't be held down, forced into a shallow grave built upon their empty ways
There's no turning back
Kirisute Gomen - Trivium
Moderator note: As with all debates, please stay civil!
not true. (yes it was the opening post but this is an important clarification)
Word Agnostic is taken from the name of the the early christian church called the Nostics which translates crudely as "knowing" or being privy to select knowledge. They belived Judas was Jesus' choosen disciple and was the only one who knew Jesus' true message and was directed by Jesus to actually betray him so he could die on the cross. Hence the name. I is documented in the lost gospel of judas for those who are intreasted.
Anyway in turn Agnotsic simply means "not-knowing". A true Agnotsic excepts that he can not ever know for certainty the truth about anything and therefore draws no conclusions on a topic including god exsistance.
In recent years in has become confused for either people who don't care or can't make up there mind or in this case don't belive in a specfic god but god may exist. There is subtle but important difference!
That photo is not of Bree Olsen, thats actually Ashlynn Brooke who may or may not be an atheist, but is a porn actress none the less. Although technically you never said that the picture was of Bree Olsen, still its misleading people espically about the most important subject of all! Porn! Lol
That photo is not of Bree Olsen, thats actually Ashlynn Brooke who may or may not be an atheist, but is a porn actress none the less. Although technically you never said that the picture was of Bree Olsen, still its misleading people espically about the most important subject of all! Porn! Lol
They look very much alike, but I'm pretty sure my pic is of Bree Olsen.
But I don't want to spend too much time on the subject. Debating porn over the Internet is a bit weird. lol
__________________
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
... I'd feel like a caveman, if they existed ... and they didn't ...
- Ned Flanders
__________________
What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others. - Confucius
Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. - Bruce Lee
__________________
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
... I'd feel like a caveman, if they existed ... and they didn't ...
- Ned Flanders
"I try to drink water to prevent hydration" - Alfian
"I work on my abs mostly, a total of 1,000 crunches a day. I don't exercise my legs at all because I don't like the feeling of my legs trembling after a work-out" - Alfian
Last edited by The Lone Wolf; 09-19-2008 at 08:30 AM.
The part that has always confused me is Atheists have to believe that there IS a God even if you don't believe IN God and all his teachings, otherwise you wouldn't try to explain the disbelief in something that doesn't exist. Correct? Just curious on why that is.
Not trying to offend anyone. I'm a Christian. I believe in Christ and you believe there is no Christ. So I'm trying to understand how you call Atheism, Atheism if you do not believe there is no God. Christianity is believing in Christ. Muslims believe in mohammad, etc., etc. It's showing acknowledgement, and is the name for a religion and a belief. How do you title a non-belief in a god. That shows you realize the possibilties of a god. Correct? I'm trying to word this so it makes more sense. Again, not trying to offend anyone.
This looks similar to a butchered version of Descartes' argument from his meditations.
The part that has always confused me is Atheists have to believe that there IS a God even if you don't believe IN God and all his teachings, otherwise you wouldn't try to explain the disbelief in something that doesn't exist. Correct? Just curious on why that is.
I understand what your saying, but you're wrong.
i.e. "There's no frog in this bucket" by looking in the bucket we conclude that there's no frog in this bucket. According to your logic I will have to believe there's a frog in the bucket in order to state that there isn't, but the fact is there's NO frog in the bucket.
I'm an atheist and I'm sure most Atheist do not belive in the god of the bible nor of any religion. When we refer to god we're refering to a personal god, that watches us, rewards, punishes, makes laws, requires us to perform certain duties, etc, etc.
The only way for an Atheist or Scientist to give some credit to a hypothesis of a god it would have to have the following characteristics:
1- Not sentient
2- Not intelligent
3- Because of 1 and 2 the creation has no real purpose.
I may even take it a step further and say;
4- There is a soul but it's not sentient nor intelligent
5- After death this soul returns to where it came from
6- Anything we do will not change any outcome for this soul, therefore, there is no Hell nor Heaven.
If this god had the above characteristics, then it will become irrelevant to our morals or the way we live our lives, since it doesn't ask for special duties or behavior.
BTW my rep is red because I was negged in the Muslim forum, I dunno why.
__________________
My Awesome Journal:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=110347951
Last edited by cleansanchez; 09-22-2008 at 06:44 PM.
i.e. "There's no frog in this bucket" by looking in the bucket we conclude that there's no frog in this bucket. According to your logic I will have to believe there's a frog in the bucket in order to state that there isn't, but the fact is there's NO frog in the bucket.
I'm an atheist and I'm sure most Atheist do not belive in the god of the bible nor of any religion. When we refer to god we're refering to a personal god, that watches us, rewards, punishes, makes laws, requires us to perform certain duties, etc, etc.
The only way for an Atheist or Scientist to give some credit to a hypothesis of a god it would have to have the following characteristics:
1- Not sentient
2- Not intelligent
3- Because of 1 and 2 the creation has no real purpose.
I may even take it a step further and say;
4- There is a soul but it's not sentient nor intelligent
5- After death this soul returns to where it came from
6- Anything we do will not change any outcome for this soul, therefore, there is no Hell nor Heaven.
If this god had the above characteristics, then it will become irrelevant to our morals or the way we live our lives, since it doesn't ask for special duties or behavior.
BTW my rep is red because I was negged in the Muslim forum, I dunno why.
i.e. "There's no frog in this bucket" by looking in the bucket we conclude that there's no frog in this bucket. According to your logic I will have to believe there's a frog in the bucket in order to state that there isn't, but the fact is there's NO frog in the bucket.
I don't want to come in here and stir things up, but I want to ask this, and do not want to start a new thread.
Although this makes complete sense, it could be deemed slightly incorrect.
Here's why: You and I would have to agree that there's a bucket to be seen, with a frog either in it, or not, based upon the ability to see into said bucket.
But what if this were to happen:
1. Out in a field, there is a bucket.
2. There is a book written by man, inspired by said frog.
3. Neither of us know what's in the bucket.
4. I assert, based off of said book, that there is a frog in the bucket.
5. You assert that since book is made by man, there is no frog.
6. Neither of us has seen into said bucket.
7. How can either of us be correct?
__________________
guys i not afriad 2 show my boobs cuz they r just boobs but i aint a slut yall so sorry i aint showing cuz i have respect for my self
Rep: 7/12/2008 @ 5:26pm = 35.
Rep: 7/12/2008 @ 5:27pm = 547.
THANKS LIFE ALERT!
jonnymontag: dont try to feel better. be better.
I don't want to come in here and stir things up, but I want to ask this, and do not want to start a new thread.
Although this makes complete sense, it could be deemed slightly incorrect.
Here's why: You and I would have to agree that there's a bucket to be seen, with a frog either in it, or not, based upon the ability to see into said bucket.
But what if this were to happen:
1. Out in a field, there is a bucket.
2. There is a book written by man, inspired by said frog.
3. Neither of us know what's in the bucket.
4. I assert, based off of said book, that there is a frog in the bucket.
5. You assert that since book is made by man, there is no frog.
6. Neither of us has seen into said bucket.
7. How can either of us be correct?
Frogs don't write, and neither do invisible, magic beings, humans do.
__________________
What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others. - Confucius
Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. - Bruce Lee
I don't want to come in here and stir things up, but I want to ask this, and do not want to start a new thread.
Although this makes complete sense, it could be deemed slightly incorrect.
Here's why: You and I would have to agree that there's a bucket to be seen, with a frog either in it, or not, based upon the ability to see into said bucket.
But what if this were to happen:
1. Out in a field, there is a bucket.
2. There is a book written by man, inspired by said frog.
3. Neither of us know what's in the bucket.
4. I assert, based off of said book, that there is a frog in the bucket.
5. You assert that since book is made by man, there is no frog.
6. Neither of us has seen into said bucket.
7. How can either of us be correct?
The frog in the bucket is a terrible example. You can prove there is a frog in the bucket. You can weigh the bucket. You look into the bucket. You can see the frog. You can touch it. If you wanted to, you could dissect it to actually prove it's a frog.
There is either a god or there isn't.
If you claim there is a god that cares about our feelings, listens to our prayers, cares about our sex lives, etc. it's up to you to prove that. It's not up to me to disprove it.
I don't want to come in here and stir things up, but I want to ask this, and do not want to start a new thread.
Although this makes complete sense, it could be deemed slightly incorrect.
Here's why: You and I would have to agree that there's a bucket to be seen, with a frog either in it, or not, based upon the ability to see into said bucket.
But what if this were to happen:
1. Out in a field, there is a bucket.
2. There is a book written by man, inspired by said frog.
3. Neither of us know what's in the bucket.
4. I assert, based off of said book, that there is a frog in the bucket.
5. You assert that since book is made by man, there is no frog.
6. Neither of us has seen into said bucket.
7. How can either of us be correct?
That's a terrible analogy.
Here's a better one:
1. Out in the field, there is a bucket.
2. There is a book written by man
3. We know that there is no frog in the bucket because we can't see a frog in there
4. You assert, based on the book, that the frog is invisible and undetectable in the bucket, and that if we don't swear allegiance to it, when we die it will send us to a torture chamber for all eternity
5. I assert that since there's no frog in the bucket, that there's no frog in the bucket.
6. You make weak rationalizations.
7. I get frustrated and give up.
1. Out in the field, there is a bucket.
2. There is a book written by man
3. We know that there is no frog in the bucket because we can't see a frog in there
4. You assert, based on the book, that the frog is invisible and undetectable in the bucket, and that if we don't swear allegiance to it, when we die it will send us to a torture chamber for all eternity
5. I assert that since there's no frog in the bucket, that there's no frog in the bucket.
6. You make weak rationalizations.
7. I get frustrated and give up.
But I stated that neither of us has not seen into said bucket..
__________________
guys i not afriad 2 show my boobs cuz they r just boobs but i aint a slut yall so sorry i aint showing cuz i have respect for my self
Rep: 7/12/2008 @ 5:26pm = 35.
Rep: 7/12/2008 @ 5:27pm = 547.
THANKS LIFE ALERT!
jonnymontag: dont try to feel better. be better.
The frog in the bucket is a terrible example. You can prove there is a frog in the bucket. You can weigh the bucket. You look into the bucket. You can see the frog. You can touch it. If you wanted to, you could dissect it to actually prove it's a frog.
There is either a god or there isn't.
If you claim there is a god that cares about our feelings, listens to our prayers, cares about our sex lives, etc. it's up to you to prove that. It's not up to me to disprove it.
Let's try to keep this about the unseen frog in the bucket lol.
__________________
guys i not afriad 2 show my boobs cuz they r just boobs but i aint a slut yall so sorry i aint showing cuz i have respect for my self
Rep: 7/12/2008 @ 5:26pm = 35.
Rep: 7/12/2008 @ 5:27pm = 547.
THANKS LIFE ALERT!
jonnymontag: dont try to feel better. be better.
Linear Mode
