10) Experts debate reality of God

10) Experts debate reality of God

There are 9041 comments on the Tulsa World story from May 8, 2010, titled 10) Experts debate reality of God. In it, Tulsa World reports that:

Christian apologist William Lane Craig made his best case for the existence of God, but in the end, his debate opponent, atheist Christopher Hitchens, remained unconvinced.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tulsa World.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#5618 Aug 21, 2010
Free Take some!
The need to burst out laughing comes along too often to be without this helpful little package.

To use correctly, simply drop in a few comments and post. This may easily be doubled or tripled.

It was inspired by the religitard faction, but created by an atheist.

Ha ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, Sorry, sorry HA, HA, HA, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, Oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, my ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, oh ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho.
Oh no, ho ho ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, oh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, Sorry, sorry HA, HA, oh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho

Oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. I can't finish, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, ungh, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ha, ha, ha, oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, hang on, hang on, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh, ungh, ungh, oh my oh, oh, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, oh,
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

#5619 Aug 21, 2010
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a liar, a coward, and behave contemptibly in debate, refusing to even address, let alone satisfactorily answer SupaAFC's questions.
Your ideas deserve no respect or attention.
You should like this guy Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, for his works were condemned by the Catholic Church; though now they are gaining acceptance. He had somewhat of a Conscious Centered Theory of the universe, much like the Biocentric Theory.

Excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Teilhard also states that 'evolution is an ascent toward consciousness", giving encephalization as an example of early stages, and therefore, signifies a continuous upsurge toward the Omega Point, which for all intents and purposes, is God.'"

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5620 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinion
Denial

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5621 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinion
Evasion

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5622 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinion
Dishonesty

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5623 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
Are you atheists afraid to address the Biocentric Theory of the Universe? It basically says matter stays in the form of a fuzzy probability-wave until a conscious observer observes it. Now what conscious observe would be around before the universe began? Could it be God!!!! Maybe the theory should be called the Conscious Centered Theory of the Universe?
Are you so afraid to answer the current topic (SoT/MJ) that you keep trying to change to another one so your double standards and lack of proof don't show? Your dishonesty does, by the way.

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5624 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your fear of the Biocentric Theory, for I makes your idea of reality an illusion. I though prefer to call it the Conscious Centered Theory of the Universe, since consciousness would have to proceed biological life in order to get the universe started in the first place. We came from God and we will return to God, ain't that a great thought?
I understand your fear of addressing issues that you made unsupported claims on, because being challenged on them makes your belief an illusion. I prefer to call it a reality check as even in your refusal to address the issue, you are still being forced to silently acknowledge that you are a hypocrite that employs double standards and are incapable of supporting your claims. Eventually you will learn that this behavior is not conductive to decent debate and will stop. Ain't that a great thought?
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

#5625 Aug 21, 2010
Seriadh wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you so afraid to answer the current topic (SoT/MJ) that you keep trying to change to another one so your double standards and lack of proof don't show? Your dishonesty does, by the way.
Such childish games you atheists play, no wonder you never got to know the One True God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5626 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Such childish games you atheists play, no wonder you never got to know the One True God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Such simple evasions you use, changing the subject in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you're wrong about something or attacking the character of those that call you to accountability. No wonder you hide your head in religion. Childish myths are much more comforting than having to think or accept realities that don't center around our desires.
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

#5627 Aug 21, 2010
Seriadh wrote:
<quoted text>
Such simple evasions you use, changing the subject in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you're wrong about something or attacking the character of those that call you to accountability. No wonder you hide your head in religion. Childish myths are much more comforting than having to think or accept realities that don't center around our desires.
So the big argument you want me to answer is why the mj car bonnet miracle is not a miracle? First find someone that actually believes it's a miracle then we can argue, but until then it's a moot point to argue whether or not it's a miracle. If you find someone who 'believes' it's a miracle a team of experts in the appropriate fields of science will be needed to investigate their claimed miracle. Until then you are battling windmills.
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

#5628 Aug 21, 2010
Seriadh wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you so afraid to answer the current topic (SoT/MJ) that you keep trying to change to another one so your double standards and lack of proof don't show? Your dishonesty does, by the way.
The current topic is about the reality of God, and not some childish mj car bonnet game. You guys have no shame.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#5629 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
You should like this guy Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, for his works were condemned by the Catholic Church; though now they are gaining acceptance. He had somewhat of a Conscious Centered Theory of the universe, much like the Biocentric Theory.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Teilhard also states that 'evolution is an ascent toward consciousness", giving encephalization as an example of early stages, and therefore, signifies a continuous upsurge toward the Omega Point, which for all intents and purposes, is God.'"
I'm familiar with Telihard de Chardin and his ideas. But that is philosophy, not science. And there is nothing about his ideas or yours that make me think of a deity, much less Jehovah-Jesus.

The universe and mind can be conceived as arising without any god. The universe is its own creator and god, and its will to awaken was likely latent in it from its initial expansion, as was its material nature. Most likely, neither mind nor matter is more fundamental than the other, each appearing to be the source of the other, the two together bootstrapping reality into existence with no god present or required.

Classical, materialist philosophies see mind as an epiphenomenon of matter. You’re describing a classical subjective idealist philosophy like Berkeley’s [nothing new under the sun, you know – and yes I know where that comes from]. These are the opposite: matter comes from mind (idealism), or mind comes from matter (materialism). This is the materialist-idealist duality.

I’m suggesting a synthesis, with these two being different manifestations of the same primal substance, like particle and wave.

No god.

Dude. This is all old stuff, and it’s been out there for a long time. All you see is what your priests show you, already chewed up for you and worked into parlor tricks and little sophistic fallacies to bring to atheists.

Study science and philosophy comprehensively, then you might have some cred. But now, not so much.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#5630 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
So the big argument you want me to answer is why the mj car bonnet miracle is not a miracle? First find someone that actually believes it's a miracle then we can argue, but until then it's a moot point to argue whether or not it's a miracle. If you find someone who 'believes' it's a miracle a team of experts in the appropriate fields of science will be needed to investigate their claimed miracle. Until then you are battling windmills.
I believe the MJ bonnet is a miracle caused by Michael.

Go. You're up now.
Paul WV

Charleston, WV

#5631 Aug 21, 2010
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm familiar with Telihard de Chardin and his ideas. But that is philosophy, not science. And there is nothing about his ideas or yours that make me think of a deity, much less Jehovah-Jesus.
The universe and mind can be conceived as arising without any god. The universe is its own creator and god, and its will to awaken was likely latent in it from its initial expansion, as was its material nature. Most likely, neither mind nor matter is more fundamental than the other, each appearing to be the source of the other, the two together bootstrapping reality into existence with no god present or required.
Classical, materialist philosophies see mind as an epiphenomenon of matter. You’re describing a classical subjective idealist philosophy like Berkeley’s [nothing new under the sun, you know – and yes I know where that comes from]. These are the opposite: matter comes from mind (idealism), or mind comes from matter (materialism). This is the materialist-idealist duality.
I’m suggesting a synthesis, with these two being different manifestations of the same primal substance, like particle and wave.
No god.
Dude. This is all old stuff, and it’s been out there for a long time. All you see is what your priests show you, already chewed up for you and worked into parlor tricks and little sophistic fallacies to bring to atheists.
Study science and philosophy comprehensively, then you might have some cred. But now, not so much.
Though the philosophy has been around the Biocentric Theory is recent; which goes to show philosophy is ahead of science. Science may one day prove Chardan was correct; and life is evolving towards the Omega Point, God; which will make you atheists wrong.

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5632 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
The current topic is about the reality of God, and not some childish mj car bonnet game. You guys have no shame.
The MJ car bonnet phenomenon is analogous to your attempt to use the Shroud of Turin to prove Jesus and validate your god. There is just as much support for one as the other. That was why it was brought up. It shows that you hold to a double standard. You'll accept one as valid but not the other when they both have the same amount of supporting evidence because of your religious bias. This is what you refuse to recognize. You claim that we have no shame because we're trying to get you to be honest about it.

“Cogito Ergo Oops!”

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#5633 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Though the philosophy has been around the Biocentric Theory is recent; which goes to show philosophy is ahead of science. Science may one day prove Chardan was correct; and life is evolving towards the Omega Point, God; which will make you atheists wrong.
So all you have is a "might"? Science "might" also prove that your god couldn't exist. What will you do then? Switch to a different interpretation in the hope that you can still carry your identity on after you're dead?
SupaAFC

Leicester, UK

#5634 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinion
You may as well have said "talk to the hand".
Remember: the thread doesn't lie. Everyone reading this thread continually sees you dodging, ignoring and belittling my posts purely to escape admitting your arguments are as stupid as your religious beliefs.

Must suck to be you, huh?
SupaAFC

Leicester, UK

#5635 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinion
Jesus cries when you lie.

Do you like making Jesus cry?
SupaAFC

Leicester, UK

#5636 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
<quoted text>
Opinion
When you can finally tell us what opinions and facts are, we'll take your claims seriously.

Do you like making Jesus cry?
SupaAFC

Leicester, UK

#5637 Aug 21, 2010
Paul WV wrote:
Are you atheists afraid to address the Biocentric Theory of the Universe?
Nope, we're just tired of you randomly changing the subject purely to run away from addressing our rebuttals to your old nonsensical claims.

We're not letting you off the hook.
Paul WV wrote:
It basically says matter stays in the form of a fuzzy probability-wave until a conscious observer observes it. Now what conscious observe would be around before the universe began? Could it be God!!!! Maybe the theory should be called the Conscious Centered Theory of the Universe?
We don't care. We'll address your teleological argument when you finally sort out your old one about the rag.

Geez, this is painful. It's like pressing a kid to eat his sprouts before feeding him ice cream.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min Dogen 61,390
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 28,322
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 14 hr Dogen 2,687
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Mar 22 Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web