Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567889 Dec 1, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
the crucifixion, is not the report of an event, it is a metaphor.
I usually white sheet your idiotic responses, but I'll ask you to explain this one.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567890 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. It's proven that water is made up of 2 hydrogen & 1 oxygen.
It's proven what the speed of sound and light is.
It's proven that oil & water don't mix.
It's proven that water is an excellent conductor of electricity.
It's proven that dolphins and whales aren't fish.
It's proven that heat expands & cold contracts.
It's proven that space isn't a complete vacuum.
Evolution, as we have guessed it, is NOT a proven fact.
Don't give me your "nothing is really proven" lie. You people tend to use it to defend your ignorant stance on evolution.
water is an insulator, it conducts electricity very poorly.

nothing is "proven" "facts" have a probability of being correct, explanations are models within parameters (or tolerances). we are still looking for an explanation for gravity, you could say it is the truth that objects fall, but if you do not define the environment and frame of reference than it is not always true.

you have an uneducated mind, and unfortunately for you (and most of your religious friends) a rather poor intellect. You have a propensity to superstition and a high rate of paranoia. Fortunately evolution is taking care of that problem, too bad it takes so long.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567891 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Inspired isn't nearly good enough. And ancient words aren't nearly good enough:
"Your position is that there is a god that has an important message for mankind, and somehow, he only reveals it to certain individuals who then write this down. And thousands of years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals.
"[Regarding] a textual testimony to a miracle such as the loaves and fishes. there's no amount of reports - anecdotal testimonial reports - that could be sufficient to justify believing that this even actually happened as reported. No amount.
"Anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this. And if it wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable would not be relying on text to do so.
"This for me is the nail in the coffin for Christianity. The god that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading this information to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony.
"That's not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify as a god should know this, which means either that god doesn't exist, or doesn't care enough about those people who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it." - Matt Dillahunty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rJ6ruM7Muo8XX
Whoever wrote that goes off the premise that there are no original texts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a testimony to the accuracy and preservation of the Old Testament and provide confidence that the Old Testament existing today is the same Old Testament as that which used by Jesus.

The bible was written over a 1,500 year span by 40 authors and it still holds up to scrutiny.

Name one other book that can say the same....

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567892 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you're saying, I do.
I don't understand why none of you admit that it's your opinion.
And the "Evolutionary science is perfectly fine without your desires interfering" line I completely disagree with.
How did life first happen in order for evolution to start happening?
How did such incredible complex life simply come to be? Especially in the millions if varieties that it has?
IMO, divine, powerful, intelligent design answers that.
the deity you imagine is a projection of your psyche, that is why it is so evil

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#567893 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the "inherited characteristics" of evolution that I have a problem with. It's the assumptions & guesses that some scientists make to "finish the story".
There is no concrete evidence that all life on this planet came from ONE single cell organism. That is an assumption. A guess.
So if the basis of the theory is started off with a guess, why would the rest of it be "fact"?
You can't deny that a lot of assumption goes into the making of ToE.
I don't know how to put it. But IMO, what we know if evolution is clearly accurate. I can't deny that nor do I want to. Fact is fact. But the WAY it happens is not known. WHY is happens is not known. The timeline of how it happened is unknown. HOW it happens is unknown.
I understand what evolution does, I don't think any of us fully understand how, though.
ToE does not entirely rest on the premise of a LUCA anymore.
In fact it could be wrong , this is why no theory is any more than 99.9% proven. It leaves room for dynamic discovery , such as the realization it may have been 3 things that shared genes that started all life as we know it. It's possible that there is no living thing today does not have these three things in common , therefore impossible to break down life to a singular ancestor.

But this is not in itself a deal buster , it is only a cause for modification.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567894 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Do all y'all see good reading skills as "mental gymnastics"?
In some cases, yes - serious gymnastics in a few, like a back tuck, except that as you are setting, you twist and end like a front tuck, and then immediately turn into an Onodi - a back handspring with a half twist so you end like a front walkover.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567895 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the "inherited characteristics" of evolution that I have a problem with. It's the assumptions & guesses that some scientists make to "finish the story".
There is no concrete evidence that all life on this planet came from ONE single cell organism. That is an assumption. A guess.
So if the basis of the theory is started off with a guess, why would the rest of it be "fact"?
You can't deny that a lot of assumption goes into the making of ToE.
I don't know how to put it. But IMO, what we know if evolution is clearly accurate. I can't deny that nor do I want to. Fact is fact. But the WAY it happens is not known. WHY is happens is not known. The timeline of how it happened is unknown. HOW it happens is unknown.
I understand what evolution does, I don't think any of us fully understand how, though.
you are missing

----wait---for---it

education

I understand it just fine

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#567896 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoever wrote that goes off the premise that there are no original texts.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a testimony to the accuracy and preservation of the Old Testament and provide confidence that the Old Testament existing today is the same Old Testament as that which used by Jesus.
The bible was written over a 1,500 year span by 40 authors and it still holds up to scrutiny.
Name one other book that can say the same....
you cant even get a decent correlation of agreement amongst current OT texts. Which one do you elect to compare with the dead sea scrolls.

the people who have done that work say the correlation is very poor.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567897 Dec 1, 2012
United in faith wrote:
I am not teaching.
Is that a disclaimer because Christian women aren't allowed to teach men?
United in faith wrote:
nor am i preaching.
Mum's the word if anybody asks.
United in faith wrote:
I am simply telling you and others what i know to be true. putting the word out there.
I know, right? You're just informing others what you know to be true about your god, not teaching or preaching.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567898 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't disregard any parts of the bible. I'm just smart enough to understand allegory, metaphor and hidden meanings.
Take leviticus 6:6 for example.
Leviticus 6:6
And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest.
Do you think that pertains to me at all in a literal sense?
Do you think it has a hidden meaning behind it?
Please don't show that you're so stupid that you can't see past the literal words...
So how do you decide which words to ignore? How do you know to disregard the bible's ethical position on slavery? Simple. You use a little compassion and reason, and ignore your bible.

From Pat Condell: YOUR MORAL GUIDE
http://dotsub.com/view/e88246dd-b45e-4eca-8e8...

"Religious people often say that atheists have no morals because they have no moral guide. If you believe this, let me ask you something. If you're a Christian, chances are the Bible is your moral guide, but is that all the Bible, or just some of it?

"It's just the good bits, isn't it? The bits you've cherry-picked because obviously if you wanted to live in a Leviticus-style society where people are stoned or mutilated for insane and trivial reasons you could simply move to Iran.

"But how do you decide which are the good bits and which are the bad in the Bible? What do you use as a moral guide? The Bible? Well, surely not. If so, you would simply accept the bad along with the good, which is clearly what the Bible wants you to do otherwise the bad wouldn't be in there in the first place, would it?

"But no, you don't do that. You defy the Bible. You sift out the bad and discard it for the ignorant primitive barbarism it is. In short, you edit the Bible to suit your own sensibilities. So where do you get the moral guidance to impose your authority on the word of the Bible? It has to come from a higher source, doesn't it?(These things usually do.)

"And it does, of course. It comes from you. You are a higher source than the Bible, a much higher source. The criminals who run religion don't want you to know or to act upon this because then their influence over you would be zero.

"Yet the evidence is clear. You sifted the good from the bad in the Bible without the Bible's help. You did it against the Bible's will, and you did it all on your own because, whether you like it or not, you have a conscience, which means that you are capable of distinguishing good from evil without the help of scripture, and you have just proven it beyond any shadow of doubt.

"So, in fact, the Bible is not your moral guide. You are. It doesn't provide you with a moral compass. You do. And the only faith you need is faith in yourself. O happy day."

==========

That's what we do, too, but we go much further. The rational ethics of secular humanism seeks to apply reason and compassion to all issues, not just the glaringly wrong one such as slavery and stoning unruly children to death.
JESUSLIVES

Chicago, IL

#567899 Dec 1, 2012
Apocalypse666 wrote:
No the point was prove it to be fact.
I believe there is no god because common sense dictates there isn't one.
So if it is a fact then prove it.
Saying you have to believe is no different than Santa Clause.
So prove that god is real and is a factual being.
If he is real then you can prove it.
If he is not then you cannot prove it.
If you believe there isn't God (the real one) then what up with the pic of satan and the 666 that involves there is God. If there's no God why do you pronounce satan freely by like worshiping satan you have to hat God cause that's what the devil does. I ain't not devil worshiper btw.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#567900 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the "inherited characteristics" of evolution that I have a problem with. It's the assumptions & guesses that some scientists make to "finish the story".
There is no concrete evidence that all life on this planet came from ONE single cell organism. That is an assumption. A guess.
So if the basis of the theory is started off with a guess, why would the rest of it be "fact"?
You can't deny that a lot of assumption goes into the making of ToE.
I don't know how to put it. But IMO, what we know if evolution is clearly accurate. I can't deny that nor do I want to. Fact is fact. But the WAY it happens is not known. WHY is happens is not known. The timeline of how it happened is unknown. HOW it happens is unknown.
I understand what evolution does, I don't think any of us fully understand how, though.
Do you have hair like your parents? That's an inherited trait.
JESUSLIVES

Chicago, IL

#567901 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Inspired isn't nearly good enough. And ancient words aren't nearly good enough:
"Your position is that there is a god that has an important message for mankind, and somehow, he only reveals it to certain individuals who then write this down. And thousands of years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals.
"[Regarding] a textual testimony to a miracle such as the loaves and fishes. there's no amount of reports - anecdotal testimonial reports - that could be sufficient to justify believing that this even actually happened as reported. No amount.
"Anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this. And if it wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable would not be relying on text to do so.
"This for me is the nail in the coffin for Christianity. The god that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading this information to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony.
"That's not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify as a god should know this, which means either that god doesn't exist, or doesn't care enough about those people who understand the nature of evidence to
actually present it." - Matt Dillahunty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rJ6ruM7Muo8XX
God doesn't work with evidence and having to prove himself that's how humans work but not my God! God doesn't need to prove himself he's God almighty and powerful. Prove to me how there is no God, you can't. You are fixed on science and proof. Christianity doesn't use science and the proof is the bible and My God doesn't need to prove himself at all God is God because he is God, God is just Awesome and doesn't need to prove himself. You need to prove to yourself how I'm wrong and your right. You need to look on my viewpoint then try to judge. There was a man who tried to prove the bible and Christianity wrong, but in the end he ended up getting saved. You can't prove my God wrong but other "gods" you can.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#567902 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Understanding the bible, understanding Christianity has nothing to do with science figuring out the composition of water. The bible isn't a science book, it's not detailed in the HOW, just the WHY. Make sense?
Then why do you use it to replace science? You just stated you don't know about evolution, so you're just buying the creation myth in place of it.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#567903 Dec 1, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Inspired isn't nearly good enough. And ancient words aren't nearly good enough:
"Your position is that there is a god that has an important message for mankind, and somehow, he only reveals it to certain individuals who then write this down. And thousands of years after this initial revelation, we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals.
"[Regarding] a textual testimony to a miracle such as the loaves and fishes. there's no amount of reports - anecdotal testimonial reports - that could be sufficient to justify believing that this even actually happened as reported. No amount.
"Anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this. And if it wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable would not be relying on text to do so.
"This for me is the nail in the coffin for Christianity. The god that Christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading this information to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony.
"That's not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify as a god should know this, which means either that god doesn't exist, or doesn't care enough about those people who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it." - Matt Dillahunty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rJ6ruM7Muo8XX
Pray tell us; what would be the intelligent way of for God to convey information to people?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#567904 Dec 1, 2012
JESUSLIVES wrote:
<quoted text>
God doesn't work with evidence and having to prove himself that's how humans work but not my God! God doesn't need to prove himself he's God almighty and powerful. Prove to me how there is no God, you can't. You are fixed on science and proof. Christianity doesn't use science and the proof is the bible and My God doesn't need to prove himself at all God is God because he is God, God is just Awesome and doesn't need to prove himself. You need to prove to yourself how I'm wrong and your right. You need to look on my viewpoint then try to judge. There was a man who tried to prove the bible and Christianity wrong, but in the end he ended up getting saved. You can't prove my God wrong but other "gods" you can.
Other gods have the same assertions and evidence as yours, therefore if they don't exist, neither does yours.

That was easy, of course, since we've addressed all these lame ducks already, it's going to be easy for all of us.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#567905 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Understanding the bible, understanding Christianity has nothing to do with science figuring out the composition of water. The bible isn't a science book, it's not detailed in the HOW, just the WHY. Make sense?
I beg to differ , there is no explanation of why
biblical or otherwise.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#567906 Dec 1, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
water is an insulator, it conducts electricity very poorly.
nothing is "proven" "facts" have a probability of being correct, explanations are models within parameters (or tolerances). we are still looking for an explanation for gravity, you could say it is the truth that objects fall, but if you do not define the environment and frame of reference than it is not always true.
you have an uneducated mind, and unfortunately for you (and most of your religious friends) a rather poor intellect. You have a propensity to superstition and a high rate of paranoia. Fortunately evolution is taking care of that problem, too bad it takes so long.
If man is the product of evolution and man has formed conceptions of deities; isnt it evolution that is driving him to that realization?

Isnt it evolution that has driven man towards the acknowledgement of the presence of (a)Deity?

Furthermore, how is it that you are still looking for explanations of gravity that is experienced daily; yet you are willing to assert the fact of evolution whilst you have nothing but data that is only visually appealing.

How can you assert that it is so? If facts have the probability of being correct; then shouldn't they also have the probability of being incorrect?

All you have is things that look like other things: genes that resemble other genes; bones that resemble human/animal bones etc. But common structures suggest formation under common influences, not necessarily development from common ancestry.

How do you justify your claim of ToE as fact or whatever you claim they are?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#567907 Dec 1, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Which is why I've said countless times that Genesis isn't a literal account. It merely details what God did, not HOW He did it. Not WHEN He did it.
I don't think Adam was literally the first human man. I think he was more likely one if the first Homo sapiens on earth. I think that God watched evolution happen, according to His plan and when man was ready (evolved enough) God made Himself known.
Yes, that is a more manageable explanation, which if God exists would make more sense of the stories. It would though tend to lend a lie to the belief that Jesus came to be killed on the cross as an atonement for us because of the sins of that first man. Surely no sane God have any reason to think that we today should atone for sins of some primitive first homo sapien, who may not have had any form of morals whatsoever. I think the beliefs in Jesus and His purpose according to Christian tradition, at least to fundamentalists, is to answer to what came before in the OT "myths".

I would prefer to think, if Jesus actually existed, that he was trying to teach people at the time about love for oneself and ones friends and enemies, rather than how many had been living. Because he like many recent evangelists of our times became so popular, people decided to continue teaching what he had taught, and did that by way of the writings in the NT and the Christian religion that sprang up.

They realized though at some point that they could not keep the impetus up forever without something to tie people to it, so they threw in the hell and damnation, which for those who aren't sold on the love aspect, they will be sold on the terror. It seems by the numbers that was a wise move in order to keep the religion alive, but not so wise in regards to human rights, etc.
Evil-lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#567908 Dec 1, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
the deity you imagine is a projection of your psyche, that is why it is so evil
Oh come on now, "evil" is a philosophical concept, stick to science and the objectively ascertainable.

God is Omnipresent implying that He permeates all of reality; which would include the mind of men. So you are right; God is ALSO a projection of our psyche... but of what value is your assertion that He is evil?

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min lightbeamrider 56,347
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min hojo 650,777
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 9 min Yes Liberal 445,939
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 10 min Rider on the Storm 182,989
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 19 min Student 45,009
what color panties are you guys wearing????????... 1 hr str8npanty 3
Have a wonderful weekend..4REAL 1 hr Doctor REALITY 1
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 4 hr Ajay 74
More from around the web