Prove there's a god.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#627246 May 28, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> The problem is not with the evidence and their appeal to lack of evidence is nothing more than lip service since any evidence offered is rejected for this or that reason. At the core of their being is protection of their atheism from any outside source. Evidence is never compiled but picked apart. The rejection of Hitler Table Talk is a prime example. They isolate and point to problems and dismiss it as a whole ignoring the fact there are outside sources which effectively validates many of Hitler's quotes in Table Talk. Its all a disease called denial.
Yup, it's their already priori position that forces them to reject any and all evidence. They themselves know that they cannot know there is no God and can never bring anything even close to proof, but are still so sure of it that they still call themselves atheists!

lol.. Imagine that..
Thinking Man

Brooklyn, NY

#627247 May 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Does knowing a god exist help to cure cancer? Did it help to cure Polio? Will it fly you to the Moon again? Nope.
Knowing the existence of God is a personal choice and has nothing to do with the validity of scientific discoveries and technological advances. Science seeks to understand processes in relation to our lives and how we might progress. Science does not nullify the existence of God. It never will.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#627248 May 28, 2013
Thinking Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing the existence of God is a personal choice and has nothing to do with the validity of scientific discoveries and technological advances. Science seeks to understand processes in relation to our lives and how we might progress. Science does not nullify the existence of God. It never will.

Exactly , science cannot test the nonexistent.
It requires something to test for.
Russel's tea pot.
nurface

London, KY

#627249 May 28, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Our soldiers do not protect freedom, and they certainly do not protect civilians, unless the brown ones don't count. We have killed hundreds of thousands of them. I understand that not many people will share my view on this, but in my opinion a killer is a killer, whether it be for pleasure or for country. It's not excusable. I honestly feel bad for them though - brainwashed as they are. It takes some hard frickin work to make men feel ok about killing other men. I don't think they come back the same person as when they left. Could be why they have so many mental health problems.
Bet you wouldnt say that, if you was placed in the middle of a hot zone in Afganistan..

You would be pissing yourself, and screaming for help for a soldier to come save your sorry spineless azz!!!

They would shove your pathetic words back down your throat, and tell you that they put on that uniform so "you" dont have too, and they risk their LIFE and have giving theirt LIFE and fight for the very freedom you have, to set in your cosey little home behind a computer screen, and spew your stupidity and ignorance. They allow COWARDS like you unfortunantly, to have what you have today, you ungratefull dick!

What i wouldnt give to meet you one day..........

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#627250 May 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
Is it better to be right or popular?
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
It is better to have knowledge...:)
What kind of "knowledge", since knowledge can be perceived in many ways?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#627251 May 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What does anyone contribute to the forum?
I mean other than bickering nonsense...
I thought you might take that stance.

You aren't paying attention.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#627252 May 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
K I don't know what addlepated means, but I do know that you're ignorant of the bibke. You've only learned what the atheist website have taught you - which is a bunch of lies.
If you knew anything about it, you'd know that Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon and Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan.
Hey are different for a reason, you addlepated nitwit.
Wrong.

"Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists.

Throughout the ages, scholars have pondered and argued over the reasons for the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke, particularly since Jewish scribes were known for their precise and detailed record keeping. Skeptics are usually quick to attribute these differences to biblical errors."

http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsan...

That's a Christian site.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627253 May 28, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> What it boils down to is a matter of trust. Do i trust you or do i trust Paul. Do i trust atheists or do i trust Jesus? You seem to trust atheists over Jesus and Paul. These atheists you trust cannot do a thing for you. I think Christians trust Jesus bodily resurrected as the sign for our times God is real and does reach out to us but we have to reach back and in doing so have to forfeit all things we hold dear in this life for Him and our fellow humans if necessary. They all play second banana.
I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm asking you to answer the questions. That you can't and resort to whatever this mess of a post of ours was is quite telling. Let's try again:

How do you know St. Paul was really inspired by God and not just crazy? What if he turned god's own plan for salvation into something completely different? Could that explain god's apparent personality change between the Old and New Testaments?
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627254 May 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
K I don't know what addlepated means, but I do know that you're ignorant of the bibke. You've only learned what the atheist website have taught you - which is a bunch of lies.
If you knew anything about it, you'd know that Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon and Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan.
Hey are different for a reason, you addlepated nitwit.
Yes, The Bibke! Look out, world, Johnny Pedantic had a typo.

You are making a positive claim that he has only learned of the Biblewhat "atheist websites" have "taught" him. Prove that positive claim or brand yourself the useless hypocrite that you are. I have it on authority that the poster is a former Christian.

Also, prove the claim that everything written about the Bible, oops, bibke, on "atheist websites" is a lie.

Go!
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627255 May 28, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
"Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists.
Throughout the ages, scholars have pondered and argued over the reasons for the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke, particularly since Jewish scribes were known for their precise and detailed record keeping. Skeptics are usually quick to attribute these differences to biblical errors."
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsan...
That's a Christian site.
Oh noes! Bibke facts from Christians. Decoder Ring Alert!
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627256 May 28, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought you might take that stance.
You aren't paying attention.
He can't afford to pay attention. He posts 70 times a day on Topix.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#627257 May 28, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I've answered that. The problem is not with the evidence and never has been. The problem is with the atheist who rejects evidence to protect his atheism. God is a theoretical construct as opposed to empirical construct. Let me quote from a book i am reading.
''If science can validly deal with physical objects that are completely outside ordinary experience (because they are not perceptible) and can employ theoretical constructs (not empirical concepts) to know something about these objects, then one cannot be precluded from employing theoretical constructs to deal with the question of God.''
''The existence of God explains why there is something rather than nothing; It explains the intelligibility and order of the universe; it explains the continuing existence of the universe; it explains the beginning of the universe; it explains the inherently mathematical model nature of the universe; it explains the existence of the laws of nature; it explains the beauty of the universe and the relationship between mathematical beauty and truth; it explains the existence of information; it explains the existence of free will and the ability to recognize good and evil;...''
Atheism on the other hand explains nothing.
It doesn't try to. Atheism is simply the default position. We would gladly become theists if there was any amount of convincing, legitimate proof.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#627258 May 28, 2013
nurface wrote:
<quoted text>
Bet you wouldnt say that, if you was placed in the middle of a hot zone in Afganistan..
You would be pissing yourself, and screaming for help for a soldier to come save your sorry spineless azz!!!
They would shove your pathetic words back down your throat, and tell you that they put on that uniform so "you" dont have too, and they risk their LIFE and have giving theirt LIFE and fight for the very freedom you have, to set in your cosey little home behind a computer screen, and spew your stupidity and ignorance. They allow COWARDS like you unfortunantly, to have what you have today, you ungratefull dick!
What i wouldnt give to meet you one day..........
Which branch did you serve in, Buford? The soldiers aren't the problem. It is the politicians and the corporate masters that are the problem and the useless rubes like you who swallow their nonsense hook, line, and sinker. We have the best soldiers in the world. They do an incredible job. Unfortunately they are exploited by our government, which is bought and paid for by soulless, immoral corporations that the Supreme Court has decided are people.

Your little rant betrays how sick your Christianity has made you and how easily you are conned by your corporate masters. Stay WalMart strong, Buford, the Chinese and the Koch Brothers thank you.

Soldiers are no longer allowed to fight for our freedom. They fight for corporate interests and profit.

The only difference between the political parties is the speed at which they hit their knees when corporations come knocking on their office door.- Ralph Nader

America, why are you allowing education to suffer so?

Since: Mar 11

Australia

#627259 May 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It didn't protect *our* freedom as much as it protected theirs.
What, you don't care about the freedom if Iraqi citizens?
Would you prefer we didn't get involved and just sit back and watch as the Iraqi armys continued to slaughter their own people and invade innocent, peaceful countries?
Shame on you.
Have you seen the great mess we have made. There is total unrest car bombings, death and destruction everyday. That wasn't going on before we went.
The first gulf war, we wouldn't have gone if it wasn't for the oil.
And you should see the horrible birth defects that are occurring because of the weapons used. Depleted uranium; though the USA deny's the use of depleted uranium, medical scientists, doctors from around the world all agree it's depleted uranium. American soldier's have also had babies with the same defects.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627260 May 28, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
"Though nearly identical from Abraham to David, the two accounts are entirely different from David to Jesus. After David, only the names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel appear on both lists.
Throughout the ages, scholars have pondered and argued over the reasons for the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke, particularly since Jewish scribes were known for their precise and detailed record keeping. Skeptics are usually quick to attribute these differences to biblical errors."
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsan...
That's a Christian site.
Yes, they are different. Thank you.

"One of the most widely held theories suggests that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus."

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627261 May 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, The Bibke! Look out, world, Johnny Pedantic had a typo.
You are making a positive claim that he has only learned of the Biblewhat "atheist websites" have "taught" him. Prove that positive claim or brand yourself the useless hypocrite that you are. I have it on authority that the poster is a former Christian.
Also, prove the claim that everything written about the Bible, oops, bibke, on "atheist websites" is a lie.
Go!
Yes, The Biblewhat! Look out, world, Johanna Pedantic had a typo.

Because he's a former Christian means something?

Since: May 11

Hounslow, UK

#627262 May 28, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> I've answered that. The problem is not with the evidence and never has been. The problem is with the atheist who rejects evidence to protect his atheism. God is a theoretical construct as opposed to empirical construct. Let me quote from a book i am reading.
''If science can validly deal with physical objects that are completely outside ordinary experience (because they are not perceptible) and can employ theoretical constructs (not empirical concepts) to know something about these objects, then one cannot be precluded from employing theoretical constructs to deal with the question of God.''
''The existence of God explains why there is something rather than nothing; It explains the intelligibility and order of the universe; it explains the continuing existence of the universe; it explains the beginning of the universe; it explains the inherently mathematical model nature of the universe; it explains the existence of the laws of nature; it explains the beauty of the universe and the relationship between mathematical beauty and truth; it explains the existence of information; it explains the existence of free will and the ability to recognize good and evil;...''
Atheism on the other hand explains nothing.
“god is a theoretical construct”

agreed, just like Schrödinger's cat. A thought experiment, nothing more.

''If science can validly deal with physical objects that are completely outside ordinary experience (because they are not perceptible) and can employ theoretical constructs (not empirical concepts) to know something about these objects, then one cannot be precluded from employing theoretical constructs to deal with the question of God.''

Excellent, now apply this to unicorns.

''The existence of God explains why there is something rather than nothing; It explains the intelligibility and order of the universe; it explains the continuing existence of the universe; it explains the beginning of the universe; it explains the inherently mathematical model nature of the universe; it explains the existence of the laws of nature; it explains the beauty of the universe and the relationship between mathematical beauty and truth; it explains the existence of information; it explains the existence of free will and the ability to recognize good and evil;...''

So you begin with the priori that god exists, for your statement to exist EVEN as a possibility you beg for special pleading.

You were never in the debating society were you?

Everything you say relies upon special pleading for the most powerful entity in the universe to exist. How weak he must be.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627263 May 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>He can't afford to pay attention. He posts 70 times a day on Topix.
I believe you post more than I do.

But as a grey box, your posts aren't counted.

Imagine that.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#627264 May 28, 2013
saidI wrote:

Have you seen the great mess we have made. There is total unrest car bombings, death and destruction everyday. That wasn't going on before we went.
Yes it was
The first gulf war, we wouldn't have gone if it wasn't for the oil.
Yes we would've.
And you should see the horrible birth defects that are occurring because of the weapons used. Depleted uranium; though the USA deny's the use of depleted uranium, medical scientists, doctors from around the world all agree it's depleted uranium. American soldier's have also had babies with the same defects.
Ya, it's all America's fault.

No, no, no... Don't you dare blame Hussein. He was a good man and the evil Empire of America went in illegally and kidnapped him.

*rolls eyes*

Since: May 11

Hounslow, UK

#627265 May 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya that would be pretty pathetic.
Thank God it isn't me!
well...if you took weekends off it would be an 90 post per day topix addiction...the figures don't lie.

send me your resume, maybe I can help you find gainful employment.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Aura Mytha 42,609
Why it's high time to get rid of billionaires 2 hr Johnny 66
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 2 hr Johnny 668
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr KENTUCKY CATHOLIC 690,653
Poll What's the most exotic/hottest mixed race group? (Jan '13) 3 hr Doctor REALITY 27
Here's What's Really Behind NFL Players Taking ... 3 hr Sedwick 1
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 5 hr --IslandGurL-- 4,370
More from around the web