Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622605 May 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are atheist symbols to you?
No, not technically.

But when atheists advocate a Santa display while at the same time denigrate a Manger display, I see that as biased and somewhat symbolizing atheism.

Or how atheists bitch n whine about prayer in school then turn around and throw a St Patrick's Day party (leprechauns and all), that's more symbolism and bias.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622606 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>What is our 'common ancestor'?

The theory of evolution hinges on the idea that all life came from one life. What life is that?

Since that question has never been answered, how could it be taught in a basic biology class?

Oh, that's right. I'm being childish and ignorant and I should just "believe" in evolution like you do.
Aerobatty wrote:
You do understand that abiogenesis and evolution are separate studies, don't you?
You do, don't you?
Yes of course. But my line of questioning is about the supposed common ancestor we all share.

Of which Koder claimed is a simple biology class but has yet to definitively answer.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622607 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you didn't ever say regardless of their religion..till now.
Next, if they're using scientific methods, their religion can't inform their science.
Last, it's beyond clear...in reading your posts, that you have a serious prejudice against Christians doing science, otherwise, you'd be more open-minded to read the data and and at least attempt to be objective.
I'm gonna go back and find the several times where I said that people of any religion can do science.

You're right, if they use the scientific method, their religion should not inform their science. Which is why apologists do not use the scientific method. Again, the scientific method does not start with a conclusion, which is what creation "scientists" do. They start with the premise the god made everything, and they look for evidence to support it. That's backwards.

No, I don't have any prejudice against christians doing science. I have a "prejudice" against christians doing quackery and trying to pass it off as science, in the same way that I have a "prejudice" against all dishonest persons (whether they are willfully dishonest or not is up for debate. I'm sure many apologists actually believe their bunk).

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622608 May 9, 2013
What was that singe celled animal?

How was it studied?

What is it called?

When did it emerge?

Most importantly - HOW did it become a life?
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why are you asking questions about abiogenesis?
There was only one question about abiogenesis, not questionS...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622609 May 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Such a response has been proven to be a mask for homosexual tendencies.
Ah.... Ok.

So your responses about God not being real is just you masking your religious tendencies, right?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622610 May 9, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>No....such a response proves homophobia and therefore proves irrational fear borne of ignorance.
Ah... Ok.

So all your responses about God not being real is just Godophobia and therefore proves irrational fear borne of ignorance.

Neato.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622611 May 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Take a quick stroll through a lunatic asylum.
Every single one of 'em is just as convinced as you are.
Koder would tell you that if can't provide scientific evidence for your assertion, it remains a myth.

Go.

I know you can't.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622612 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you didn't ever say regardless of their religion..till now.
Next, if they're using scientific methods, their religion can't inform their science.
Last, it's beyond clear...in reading your posts, that you have a serious prejudice against Christians doing science, otherwise, you'd be more open-minded to read the data and and at least attempt to be objective.
"Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective."

Snipped from one of my posts. I even left in the context so you can't accuse me of quote mining. Do I need to find more posts where I echo a similar sentiment (that religious belief is not important until it interferes with objectivity) or do you accept that I clearly have no issue with religious scientists, only with "scientists" who allow their religion to inform their science?
Bartholomew Oglethorpe

United States

#622613 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
A belief in God is not a conclusion for science. They are separate. I believe in God and have many other personal opinions and beliefs...but when I go to work, my personal beliefs don't mean squat. I deal with people from every walk of life and I have the decency to respect that, I don't base my care on personal beliefs, I base it on facts.
Thank you for proving that presuppositional apologetics are not science.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622614 May 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
1. Replace the word gay with the word black in that sentence. Go to Compton. Wear it on a sandwich board. Run. Denying basic civil rights is un-American.
2. What is an "evolutionist"? Evolution has nothing to do with belief.
3. Care for a mirror?
1. I didn't know blacks in Compton were seeking acceptance....

2. An evolutionist is a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
www.thefreedictionary.com/evolutionist

3. Why? To see my God given beauty?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622615 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>They start with the premise the god made everything, and they look for evidence to support it. That's backwards.
Premise is not a strong enough word. Should be conclusion. Also of note, they ignore all evidence that contradicts their conclusion.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#622616 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>That's good, but it's irrelevant. Again, I never made the claim that religious people cannot perform their job, whatever it may be, just as well as anyone else. I said that once they (they meaning scientists) start letting their faith inform their science, they cease to be scientists. Am I a scientist if I start with the conclusion that Thor created the world, and I look for any and all evidence to support that conclusion and ignore the rest? That's what apologists, and specifically creation scientists do.
If a scientist uses the scientific method and has data to substantiate it, it doesn't matter what they believe. science is science and they are still a scientist. Who are you to say their faith informed their science? You won't even be objective and read the data...no...you immediately assume it's biased. what that tells me is one of two things...you're either prejudice or shallow. maybe both... Pick one.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622617 May 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
versus
<quoted text>
You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Apparently you don't understand prose or expression. Here:

dictionary.com

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622618 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Koder would tell you that if can't provide scientific evidence for your assertion, it remains a myth.
Go.
I know you can't.
I don't know if you are stupid, or if you do this on purpose.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#622619 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I'm gonna go back and find the several times where I said that people of any religion can do science.
You're right, if they use the scientific method, their religion should not inform their science. Which is why apologists do not use the scientific method. Again, the scientific method does not start with a conclusion, which is what creation "scientists" do. They start with the premise the god made everything, and they look for evidence to support it. That's backwards.
No, I don't have any prejudice against christians doing science. I have a "prejudice" against christians doing quackery and trying to pass it off as science, in the same way that I have a "prejudice" against all dishonest persons (whether they are willfully dishonest or not is up for debate. I'm sure many apologists actually believe their bunk).
Yes...I'd like to see where you said that...I truly don't recall that at all.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622620 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
What was that singe celled animal?
How was it studied?
What is it called?
When did it emerge?
Most importantly - HOW did it become a life?
<quoted text>
There was only one question about abiogenesis, not questionS...
Therefore, jesus.
Bartholomew Oglethorpe

United States

#622621 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah.... Ok.
So your responses about God not being real is just you masking your religious tendencies, right?
Those two things are not analogous. You are guilty of an equivocation fallacy. Studies have shown that the more virulent the anti-homosexual, the more likely the individual is repressing strong homosexual feelings. No such studies exist for beliefs. Sexual desires and beliefs are not analogous. Nice try, though.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#622622 May 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, 24-7. You sick twits can't wait to force your immoral stories on children. Genocide! Yes!
http://www.christianbook.com/bible-pop-up-adv...
So you think God is a piece of cardboard popping out of a book?

Dude....

Ok here, lets teach little baby kids about mom & mom. Because you think it's healthy and natural...

http://www.amazon.com/Mom-Mum-are-Getting-Mar...

"This is a wonderful book that teaches young kids the alphabet while incorporating gay and lesbian tendencies."

WTF?
Bartholomew Oglethorpe

United States

#622623 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah... Ok.
So all your responses about God not being real is just Godophobia and therefore proves irrational fear borne of ignorance.
Neato.
Once again, beliefs and desires are not analogous. You are smart enough to know this but duplicitous enough to pretend not to.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#622624 May 9, 2013
Bartholomew Oglethorpe wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for proving that presuppositional apologetics are not science.
I didn't prove anything....

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) 13 min Thinking 49,008
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 47 min CHURCHINGALING 646,717
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr KellyP in Jersey 2,085
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 445,726
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 hr Steve III 44,702
gay at ghaziabad (Jul '14) 2 hr gaurav 13
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 105,635
More from around the web