Pat

Granby, CT

#585766 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage.
Even if I desire to die, that would not take away my positiveness towards God.
As a matter of fact, I never worry about life after death; I only ask that when its time to die, God allows me to die in peace.
IT IS NOT DEATH THAT I FEAR IT IS SUFFERING THAT I HATE.
You think your little psychology class has prepared you to just refute and debunk the claims of the value of a belief in God to the human mind; but you are wrong.
But if you want to go all psychology I can do it too.
Science suggests that one day all the universe will dissolve into nothingness; it will literally grind to a halt.
So what does that make our efforts to advance scientifically, technologically and all those other -allys?
All our human pursuits are nothing more that a futile attempt to escape the inevitable demise that awaits all; regardless of its potential or status or value.
If I am only denying death; you are only trying to suppress the anxiety induced in your mind by contemplating the meaninglessness of your existence and all your pursuits and efforts, even on Topix.
"You think your little psychology class has prepared you to just refute and debunk the claims of the value of a belief in God to the human mind; but you are wrong."

Yet another baseless assumption for I am simply using logic against your irrational nonsense, nothing more. I have never taken a psychology class.

"Science suggests that one day all the universe will dissolve into nothingness; it will literally grind to a halt.
So what does that make our efforts to advance scientifically, technologically and all those other -allys?
All our human pursuits are nothing more that a futile attempt to escape the inevitable demise that awaits all; regardless of its potential or status or value."

The purpose of life is life itself. We advance because we can and because it makes our lives more enjoyable but by all means till your garden by hand, I'll use my rototiller thank you.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#585768 Jan 10, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>If it or any effects is noted, it will likely be a atomic or subatomic altered state(superconductive alignment) which is invisible for all intent(or in a different plane)-that probably being dependant upon temp or density of the transient medium. IMO,,,but who am I?
.. that's where belief systems come into play ..

.. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the error in logic concerning NDEs..

.. science claims the NDE experience is INDUCED by a biological process but it cannot say it is DUE to a biological process ..

.. if you sneeze, is it due to a cold or a reaction to pollen ??..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585769 Jan 10, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>
And ownership or insurance will protect everyone. I don't see any problem here. It's called liability insurance for a reason.
Insurance for what reason? Theft?
God Himself

Baltimore, MD

#585770 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Because cars are more dangerous and more valuable.
I fart up your nose.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#585771 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. There are no perfect gods that make mistakes..
Any idiot can understand that.

And it doesnt take a genius to see that that is true either. what's the point?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Any claim that such a god exists is self-refuting.
SO whats your real problem, the claims of the perfection of God's Character or the perfection of God's Potentials?

Because a God Who is perfect in power can do anything in any way to any degree; as well as He can choose to do nothing.

A God who is of perfect character is superfluous to the discussion; for character does not determine reality, POWER DOES.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585772 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Taxing cigarettes is a ploy to get more money out of people.
Society pays more for their health care, so smokers should pay more taxes
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Poorer people, too. Statistics show that generally lower-income people smoke. People that usually can't afford it.
Is that part of an argument against such taxes?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think it's a way of deterring smoking by making the cost too high to afford.
The amount of the tax should be at least enough to cover the marginal health care expenses due to smoking. If tax law can be used constructively to deter smoking, then that is a good thing.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585773 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Besides, where's all that tax money going? Where's that $25 million a year going? I'd love to see the reports...
I'll bet it's more than 25 million dollars. But yes, government transparency and accountability is a principle I espouse as well. But good luck with that, though.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I do want the government to stay out of smoker's way, and everybody's way. I do not want ALL smoking legislation reversed, you're being absurd.
You're contradicting yourself. Smoking-related laws all either forbid or compel something. You either support that or you don't

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585774 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You'd support an excise tax on cheeseburgers because they're fattening & deadly? I'm not surprised.
Not exactly. I would favor it if cheeseburger eating cost society money.

And you consider that wrong? I guess that you expect me to share the tab for cheeseburger habit, too. I'm not surprised.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Then why not a HUGE tax on vehicles? A car puts out more deadly "second hand" fumes in 1 minute than a typical smoker does in a year.
I'm really only qualified to discuss principles, not their implementation. I think that the tax appears in the price of gasoline. You seem to think that your freedom should be free for you or its not freedom.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ever seen 5 guys in an enclosed room chain smoking & drinking? Yup, none of them dies (that night). Put a car in idle in that same enclosed room and all 5 die.
Is this part of an argument against cigarette taxes? If so, it's a ridiculous one.
God Himself

Dallas, TX

#585775 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Insurance for what reason? Theft?
I fart up your nose.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#585776 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you like totally dodge English language class?
You obviously have never heard of "synonyms".
Faith is a belief like all other beliefs.
And the value of any belief is determined by its consistency with reality.
So as long as my faith is consistent with what I experience, then my faith is no less valid than the confidence a scientist places in a concept, theory or fact :P
If you keep posting you will with each post effectively persuaded us, little by little by whittling away what little reasoning we presumed you had thus thoroughly convincing us.
That you are a genuine blithering idiot.
Pat

Granby, CT

#585777 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Abraham Lincoln did not know what I know so he was not thinking the way I am thinking.
When a scientists form a hypothesis or a theory, which is then proven to be factual; is he lying?
Because if scientists already knew that their theories and hypothesis were correct, then testing and experimenting would be redundant.
So does the proving of a theory, hypothesis or scientific claim make the scientists wrong?
And if the theory, hypothesis or scientific claim is proven factual; are they accidentally truthful?
What have you been proving, except that you are a facking clown? I should call you DUMBO or DUMB-OH or DUMB-HOE or DUMB-O!
"Well Abraham Lincoln did not know what I know so he was not thinking the way I am thinking."

But what he said was true and applies perfectly to your baseless claims of a god. Your claim of secret knowledge is often where you dishonest theists end up in a debate. You have big ego/small brain disease.

"When a scientists form a hypothesis or a theory, which is then proven to be factual; is he lying?"

Not at all, and if you bothered to look up the definition of a hypothesis or a scientific theory you would understand why little boy.

"So does the proving of a theory, hypothesis or scientific claim make the scientists wrong?"

We have now entered the Twilight Zone....

Look up hypothesis and learn what it means before you try to debate it little boy. A hypothesis is not a claim of any certanties it is asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. A hypothesis being incorrect does not make the one who offered it a liar.

"What have you been proving, except that you are a facking clown? I should call you DUMBO or DUMB-OH or DUMB-HOE or DUMB-O!"

That's called projection when you do that and you dishonest theists resort to it often as you have already proven. You are an idiot amongst idiots.

“Move into the light.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#585778 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Society pays more for their health care, so smokers should pay more taxes
<quoted text>
Is that part of an argument against such taxes?
<quoted text>
The amount of the tax should be at least enough to cover the marginal health care expenses due to smoking. If tax law can be used constructively to deter smoking, then that is a good thing.
non smokers live longer so they will receive more benefits , therefore should pay more taxes.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#585779 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
"Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are always considered true. They are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are PROPOSED AS TRUE and EXPECTED to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. SOMETIMES THEORIES ARE INCORRECT, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often THEORIES ARE CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO NEW OBSERVATIONS, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made." [wikipedia.com]
SO not only do scientists ASSUME that the theory is true; they sometimes TWEAK it to make it better reflect reality.
So how come when I accept that the existence of God is true in order to begin learning about Him; you have a problem?
Dont you find the idea of tweaking scientific theory to match reality to constitute intellectual dishonesty?
If what they say is so accurate and scientific; what relevance is there is adding and removing, cutting and pasting?
You need a real hard, long, fat, stiff... drink... in your stomach... so you can relax... and unwind.
You accept the existence of god without any observations.

Correct?

If you have made observations, are they testable?

If so, how?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585780 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So if there are no such things nor even the faintest idea, how do you know what you are talking about?
A non-existent cannot be rationally described nor logically represented, for the simple fact that it has no prperties to describe or represent.
So how do you know that the entities with which specific attributes are associated, dont exist?
I face a dilemma in situation like this:
I can either conclude that you are a blabbering fool who just wants to troll; or I can conclude that you are a blabbering fool who just hates God.
Choices choices.
There's no choice, he's both.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585781 Jan 10, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya...no concept of scientific hypothesis/theory/law.
Most 25 year olds don't.....
Pat

Granby, CT

#585782 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
"Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are always considered true. They are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are PROPOSED AS TRUE and EXPECTED to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. SOMETIMES THEORIES ARE INCORRECT, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often THEORIES ARE CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO NEW OBSERVATIONS, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made." [wikipedia.com]
SO not only do scientists ASSUME that the theory is true; they sometimes TWEAK it to make it better reflect reality.
So how come when I accept that the existence of God is true in order to begin learning about Him; you have a problem?
Dont you find the idea of tweaking scientific theory to match reality to constitute intellectual dishonesty?
If what they say is so accurate and scientific; what relevance is there is adding and removing, cutting and pasting?
You need a real hard, long, fat, stiff... drink... in your stomach... so you can relax... and unwind.
"SO not only do scientists ASSUME that the theory is true; they sometimes TWEAK it to make it better reflect reality."

First of all scientific theories attempt to describe a set of FACTS, like the theory of evolution describes how different species, species that we know for a fact exist, came to be. Yes, science will change it's theories as new evidence presents itself - unlike stale stagnant religious dogma, and it does this because it is HONEST.

"Dont you find the idea of tweaking scientific theory to match reality to constitute intellectual dishonesty?"

Just the opposite, science approaches the truth closer and closer by doing that.

"So how come when I accept that the existence of God is true in order to begin learning about Him; you have a problem?"

Because your conclusion is based on nothing but personal desire and no evidence. I also don't have a "problem" because you fail to use your brain properly and believe in religious dogma, as far as I am concerned that is your problem.

"If what they say is so accurate and scientific; what relevance is there is adding and removing, cutting and pasting?"

It's called honesty, a concept you theists can not comprehend.

"You need a real hard, long, fat, stiff... drink... in your stomach... so you can relax... and unwind"

Booze is just like religion, a crutch, an escape from relaity for those who need one. Have fun!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585783 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
The fact is that the evidence which is presented supports evolution theory but it does not PROVE that evolution is reality.
The evidence establishes the validity of the theory.

Proof is not the standard for scientific theory. Nor is it the standard for much of daily life. It certainly has no place in religion.
God Himself wrote:
But the failure to prove evolution theory does not prevent scientists from claiming that it is fact; the evidence supports it.
The theory is correct in its oldest and most central aspects. Newer refinements may be overturned or otherwise modified.
God Himself wrote:
I dont have to prove that God exists either.
No, you don't.
God Himself wrote:
As long as I see evidence to support the existence of God, me and my little group can form our consensus and say that it is a fact that God exists.
Yes, you can. And so can the flat earthers regarding their beliefs. That's what makes faith so worthless.
God Himself wrote:
If atheists can call what they feel, fact; then religious person must be able to call what they experience a reality.
Sorry, but that's where the two part ways. As Bill Maher said,

"No. N-n-n-n-no. Itís not fair that people who canít defend their own nonsense get to create a fake fair and balanced argument, the way they do when asserting that evolution and creationism are equally valid....[W]hen it comes to religion, weíre not two sides of the same coin and you donít get to put your un-reason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, Thor and The Kraken - with the stuff that is not evidence-based"

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#585784 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Insurance for what reason? Theft?
Theft and any subsequent harm it might do as a result of your not properly securing it.
Pat

Granby, CT

#585785 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists assume a theory to be true before they test it; but you dont let that bother you do you?
But as soon as I make a suggestion on the nature of God your hounding at my balls.
If I cant claim that God does exist; no-one can claim that God DOES NOT EXIST.
Do you think a negative stance is more logical than a positive one?
What are you more likely to find; evidence that something exists or evidence that something does not exist?
How many negatives has science proven?
<quoted text>
That makes no sense.
Whatever will happen has already happened (I dare you to prove otherwise).
If I know that I will win, I can claim that I will win. Thats prediction for ya.
<quoted text>
You sound so sexy when you cuss.
I'm 25 by the way. How old are you?
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. Science does not assume, ignorant theists do.

"If I cant claim that God does exist; no-one can claim that God DOES NOT EXIST.

You can claim it, you are just exposing your faulty reasoning abilities no different from any body else who makes claims that lack support, including atheists.

"Do you think a negative stance is more logical than a positive one?"

No, I think keeping an open mind and forming no opinion either way is the only rational position to hold when there is no knowledge to base an opinion on.

"Whatever will happen has already happened (I dare you to prove otherwise)."

Just as soon as you prove there are no aliens on Pluto.

"You sound so sexy when you cuss."

Good luck to you, at least you gays can now get married.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#585786 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
That god cares more about who has been putting what into whom more than just about anything else. The residues of the fluids that dried there tell the tale.
You don't get to be called omniscient unless you know what every dirty pair of shorts and panties smell like.
Lol!

Makes sense.

I thought you just threw that in to see if we were paying attention.

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
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 5 min Seentheotherside 2,090
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min HipGnosis 610,077
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 23 min June VanDerMark 579,649
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 33 min Al Capone 5,701
Caucasians are Neanderthal-Sapien hybrids. (Oct '07) 33 min thewordofme 171
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 34 min Anxious 1 290
How to Recover Deleted Messages from iPhone wit... (May '13) 49 min Tomshanker 60
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr WelbyMD 270,224
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 hr New Age Spiritual... 441,990
More from around the web