“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

just better than yesterday

#508065 Jun 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't.
My disbelief in the supernatural has nothing to do with my "comfort."
Does believing in something unproven sound silly to you? I mentioned earlier on this thread about when I was younger and I was suffering from seizures, my mom took me to a curandero and quite frankly I thought he was full of it. I went only once because my mom forced me to but never again.
I didn't think he was of the Devil or of God, I just felt he was a sham. I did feel silly going however.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#508066 Jun 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Reserving judgment until that something has been proven to not exist would be a sign of a higher intelligence.
BTW, the Big Bang, and a wide variety of other scientific theories can not be proven. Should they be denied out of hand?
Comparing a scientific theory, which is supported by evidence and demonstrated to be true through mathematics and predictive applications, with a wishful thought.

Assertions, such as "there's a god" cannot be proven, but an assertion that "this is what god exists" can be proven or falsified based on the evidence. There is evidence that contradicts all gods dreamed up by humanity, therefore, none of those exist.

“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

just better than yesterday

#508069 Jun 8, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Denying the existence of something which cannot be proven has nothing to do with comfort, it is a sign of intelligence.
With all due respect Kitten, Scientists try to prove daily what cannot be proven. I think they're pretty smart.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#508070 Jun 8, 2012
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>Can you kindly present the many things written in the Bible, that are not true and the evidence that conclusively proves that? EVIDENCE PLEASE.
For the flood there would have to be evidence to prove it is true, and there is none. Therefore the default is that it is not true. Without evidence, there is no way an assertion can be claimed as factual.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#508073 Jun 8, 2012
artqween wrote:
<quoted text>
look around you.. God created this world.
Look around you. Atum created this world.
Look around you. Unkulunkulu created this world.
Look around you. Vishna created this world.
Look around you. Zeus created this world.
Look around you. Allah created this world.
Look around you. Ranginui the Sky Father created this world.

Etc etc etc.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#508074 Jun 8, 2012
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>So, explain and share with us the proof of the parts of the Big Bang theory that have been proven. You do know that not proving all parts, means that there are no parts proven.
Wait, you said, "I believe very strongly that everything was not created from absolutely nothing"....stop there. Are you saying everything was created from nothing but just not by an unseen God or are you saying that everything was created from absolutely nothing by nothing? You know that you said "I believe", which means that evolution has become your religion.
By the way, Darwin was stumped right here and later said that he believed that there had to be a creator and designer. He just said that he did not believe in a God who judged and condemned man.
So many fallacies, so little time. The Darwin notion was based on a mined quote and is invalid, not to mention, he was in the early 19th century, move on and catch up, science grows and back then knowledge was pretty primitive compared to today.

Your other portion is the failed Kalam Cosmological Argument reworded and nothing more. You are assuming that, again, it had to be a "who" without leaving any room for any other possibility, and thus you are exiting the realm of reason and logic.

Then the evolution notion you posited is baseless and nothing more than your projection.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#508076 Jun 8, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The abrahamic religions cause shame of our hominid ancestors.
Because they would have to admit their faith is based on a lie.
So instead of facing the truth they deny. The problem is it is not 200 years ago when you actually could deny the truth . It is the 21st century and we know the truth of our hominid ancestors.
It serves no purpose to lie to yourself about it .
I suppose it does serve a purpose if you are willing to delude yourself for the sake of being part of a religious community, or if the idea of an indifferent universe offends your infantile need for a caretaking deity who created the universe just for you, or if you cannot imagine a moral code without a cosmic policeman to keep you in line.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#508078 Jun 8, 2012
atheists_worst_nightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the natural laws do exist. Some religious extremists choose to deny it. It violates their comfort.
God exists. Some secular extremists choose to deny it. It violates their comfort.
See how that works?
For someone who claims to have been an atheist, you sure seem to have entirely forgotten what atheism is. Atheism is skepticism of religious claims which cannot be substantiated with objective evidence. Atheists don't deny any deity because "it violates their comfort", any more than you deny Lord Krishna because Lord Krishna violates your comfort.

Provide evidence for your deity which is falsifiable, objectively verifiable, and repeatably testable. Do that, and there would be no atheists. But no religion has ever been able to do this, thus it is unlikely any deity exists. Certainly none of the ones imagined by humans do.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#508079 Jun 8, 2012
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>That is an illogical fallacy. Please follow the discussion. He said that many parts of the Bible have been proven wrong. That requires proof that it is wrong, not lack of evidence that it is true. There is no default position to be taken. We are not discussing whether it is factual, we are discussing whether it has been proven false.
The Bible does not need to meet scientific requirements, it is faith based not science based. Which means that religion is not trying to become a science. However, science in many cases is very comfortable with being belief and faith based instead of science based.
Again, the discussion is about the evidence that the Bible is wrong, this is quite different from religious claims it is inerrant.
You think backwards, and thus why you so easily buy into cons so easily. Proof must support the positive assertion, lack of proof supports the negative assertion. Since there is no proof of most of the bible being true, the bible is mostly wrong, get it yet?

Innocent until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty, same things.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#508080 Jun 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't.
My disbelief in the supernatural has nothing to do with my "comfort."
Why do theists constantly revert to straw man arguments like this? Telling others what they think and feel? It's so weak.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#508082 Jun 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't.
My disbelief in the supernatural has nothing to do with my "comfort."
Oh really?

What's your biggest personal objection to the possible existence of God?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#508083 Jun 8, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>Does believing in something unproven sound silly to you? I mentioned earlier on this thread about when I was younger and I was suffering from seizures, my mom took me to a curandero and quite frankly I thought he was full of it. I went only once because my mom forced me to but never again.
I didn't think he was of the Devil or of God, I just felt he was a sham. I did feel silly going however.
Believing in anything without evidentiary support just runs counter to my nature.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#508085 Jun 8, 2012
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, where is your evidence and demonstration by mathematics and predictive application. What you do is not uncommon, because you make a statement and then provide no evidence.
You say " Science is based on evidence, don't question me". There is a reason that it is called a theory, and in most cases it does not even meet the criteria to be labeled a theory.
Again, where is YOUR evidence. You don't even attempt to provide links to some one else's evidence that you simply believe.
You are projecting, I made no mention of any specific scientific theory, you should specify specify which one you want evidence for and if I can I will show you the evidence for it, again, if I can. No one person can know all of it, that's why there have to be specializations in science, it's virtually impossible for one person to even keep up with just one area unless they study that exclusively.

So your entire point here is your own projection, not mine. I only asserted that there is no evidence to support the bible, and some evidence that contradicts the bible, if you want to address a specific one, mention it then if there is contradictory evidence I will present.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#508086 Jun 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Reserving judgment until that something has been proven to not exist would be a sign of a higher intelligence.
Not at all. Religion has had at least as long as recorded history to prove it's various claims. That's pretty strong evidence that none of them are true. Are humans supposed to forever reserve judgement that unfalsifiable claims which can never be disproved? Do you reserve judgement that Mbombo (of Bakuba mythology) vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache? Or are you willing to give Yahweh a pass because it's more culturally relevant to you?
BTW, the Big Bang, and a wide variety of other scientific theories can not be proven. Should they be denied out of hand?
What makes you think that no scientific theory about the origin of the universe (or the lack of an origin) can never be definitively proved? Current theories are backed up by much objective, testable evidence. If a given one turns out to be wrong, science corrects itself. Contrast that to deism and creationism, which hasn't a shred of objective evidence. All it can do is lurk in the gaps in science and try and be the default explanation. Pretty pitiful existence.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#508087 Jun 8, 2012
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do theists constantly revert to straw man arguments like this? Telling others what they think and feel? It's so weak.
Hey, when that's all you've got....

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#508088 Jun 8, 2012
atheists_worst_nightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really?
What's your biggest personal objection to the possible existence of God?
Which god?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#508090 Jun 8, 2012
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>That is an illogical fallacy. Please follow the discussion. He said that many parts of the Bible have been proven wrong. That requires proof that it is wrong, not lack of evidence that it is true. There is no default position to be taken. We are not discussing whether it is factual, we are discussing whether it has been proven false.
The Bible does not need to meet scientific requirements, it is faith based not science based. Which means that religion is not trying to become a science. However, science in many cases is very comfortable with being belief and faith based instead of science based.
Again, the discussion is about the evidence that the Bible is wrong, this is quite different from religious claims it is inerrant.
Core sampling throughout the continents of Earth show traces of sporadic localized flood events , no worldwide flood event
ever occurred . However we do find 5 extinction events none of which were result of water. The evidence is conclusive that no global flood ever occurred besides it being a physical impossibility. There exists no flood evidence in the rock strata, but the evidence does show for billions of years of the geological history that does not include a global flood.

That is evidence there was no damn global flood!

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#508091 Jun 8, 2012
Sir Doctor 3 wrote:
<quoted text>If HFY was versed enough to explain it to you, then you should have he knowledge now to explain it. It is interesting that you mentioned donkey, but then you deferred to HFY.
You seem to have mistaken me for a science tutor. If you are interested in learning, I highly encourage that.
You make the assumption, that rejection of the theory and realization of the flaws in the theory, are signs of inability to learn. Sorry, my friend, but my professors would differ with you and the A pages are proof.
There are flaws and gaps in any theory, doesn't mean the theory itself is not sound necessarily. See? You again display your ignorance of science. I have no idea who your professors are, but if they tell you objectively verifiable science is wrong and religious claims are correct, then they are wrong and you are being duped.
Dave Nelson explained it best, most all of you, Hidingfromyou too, since she learned only what she was taught, simply learned rote style, flash card or input in so input out. You never stopped to try to understand if it made sense.
That's an easy, intellectually lazy thing to say. It's alot harder to take what HFY has said and can back up with citations and then find flaws in the actual theories. But you two are content to lazily scoff. Frankly, that's not terribly convincing.
Next time you think about a donkey, you should simply ride one, because if you can't explain science then you don't know it. If you think so highly of HFY and her explanations, then how come you have not learned them?
I can explain science to a degree. I understand enough about some scientific theories and religious claims to know which one is more likely to be true, which is more than you can say. You seem to suffer from bi-polar thinking, that one must either be an expert or completely ignorant. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between two extremes.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#508093 Jun 8, 2012
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
For someone who claims to have been an atheist, you sure seem to have entirely forgotten what atheism is. Atheism is skepticism of religious claims which cannot be substantiated with objective evidence. Atheists don't deny any deity because "it violates their comfort", any more than you deny Lord Krishna because Lord Krishna violates your comfort.
Provide evidence for your deity which is falsifiable, objectively verifiable, and repeatably testable. Do that, and there would be no atheists. But no religion has ever been able to do this, thus it is unlikely any deity exists. Certainly none of the ones imagined by humans do.
Oh you mean the superficial arguments. Yes I do remember what it's like, and that's why I believe all anti-theists are liars.
I was. I rejected God because I didn't like the idea of hell, and I didn't understand how evil could exist in a universe with an all powerful God. That was just the smoke and mirrors. The 'wall of comfort' that I used to insulate my own ego. At the very core was the discomfort I felt with the idea of being 'judged'. I was king of my own little world, and I felt I was above judgment. It was a comfort issue. That's what I told Brother Marine, and that's why you all jumped down his throat about it. I knew deep down inside that there was something, bigger, greater, and more powerful than me, and so do you. I just couldn't bring myself to admit it. You're in the same narrow minded trap. You just can't admit it. Not yet anyways. Many can't, and many never will. Perhaps you're determined to never admit it. That's your choice. We can't force you now, any more than I could be forced back then. We can't prove anything to you. We don't have to. Christians only need to defend their personal faith by stating what they believe and why they believe it. You have to prove it to yourself, which is why I started posting here with the challenge that you should try to prove God using the same apologetics we use.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#508094 Jun 8, 2012
atheists_worst_nightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really?
What's your biggest personal objection to the possible existence of God?
What is your biggest personal objection to god being a invisible pink unicorn?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Pad 559,352
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 12 min RiccardoFire 37,812
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 12 min Seraphima 604,964
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 14 min Charlie Sheen 265,094
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 27 min RiccardoFire 96,742
Our God Is The Mighty Creator Of All Things! 38 min andet1987 3
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 1 hr royal kannadiga 1,259
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Lyndi 175,605
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 6 hr Barnsweb 441,764
More from around the web