Prove there's a god.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#631154 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Your blind partisanship is showing.
Me recognizing the criteria other posters utilize to form their opinions of your ideology doesn't translate to be being a "blind partisan" . It translates to me being observant nothing more.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#631155 Jun 19, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
So how much evidence is required to prove something?
Example:
- there are loads of evidence for a "supernatural/paranormal " world around us, but many refuse to accept the evidence.
- one could also use this same analogy for UFOs.
So how much evidence is required to prove something?
....if evidence is not valid enough, what exactly is required?
<quoted text>
Please clarify.
I do believe that alot of attempts with, what was at one time were called "pseudo-sciences",- actually became Sciences.
I also believe that the parameters in Science that exist today,'evolved' into the stringent applications we see today.
If something is impossible to both prove or disprove we have to decide given what limited evidence that is available what is the more plausible explanation.That is open to interpretation and more so when influenced by ideologies.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#631156 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Me recognizing the criteria other posters utilize to form their opinions of your ideology doesn't translate to be being a "blind partisan" . It translates to me being observant nothing more.
Actually, it does. I am a capitalist, and a conservative one at that. I don't much care for liberal ideology, actually, many are just as nuts as the religious people.

Conservative is not a religious ideology, it's a political one, idiot.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#631157 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
If something is impossible to both prove or disprove we have to decide given what limited evidence that is available what is the more plausible explanation.That is open to interpretation and more so when influenced by ideologies.
Science has this wonderful filter that prevents things based on ideologies from being accepted, it's the peer review process. Evidence that passes this test is not up for "interpretation," it's just evidence. That is why things like evolution, gravity, and digital electronics all have theories and your god has none.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#631158 Jun 19, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine, nothing but nothing for eternity, and than ...... wait for it ......
KA SPRING !!!!!!
Hello everybody, look at us, we just sprang too life for absolutely no reason at all , it just happened because it just happened.
Either that or there was a loose spring.
Lol

KA SPRING !!!!!!

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#631159 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Everything you say makes sense. I won't debate it.
Not gonna scroll back through yesterday's posts, but I did see your post where you used the CIA as a source for infant mortality, which is one of THE most nonsensical things you've ever done here.

Also, I was talking about INDUSTRIALIZED nations- not third world countries.

REPORT: The U.S Has The Highest First-Day Infant Death Rate In The Industrialized World

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/07/19...

U.S. Top of List for First-Day Deaths in Rich Nations
More babies die on their first day of life in the United States than in any other industrialized country.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/...

Now here is some good news:

U.S. infant mortality drops, still high

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/U-S-infa...

But the rate is still very high and MUCH higher than every other industrialized nation, who, unlike the USA, do NOT boast about being the richest country in the world.

At any rate, the infant mortality rate in our industrialized nation IS a national disgrace and AGAIN- LEARN. TO. READ.

Again- I DID say INDUSTRIALIZED nations.

Perhaps you consider countries like AFGHANISTAN to be on a par with the USA???

If so, that doesn't say much about YOUR opinion about our country.

Sorry, RR- you lose AGAIN.

I LOVE my country and I AM proud to be a US citizen and to have been BORN here.

But as has been mentioned to you in the past, part of love is recognizing and accepting the flaws of the object of one's love- warts and all.

I realize this is a foreign concept to you since you have posted that you DO love your sons, but if they came to you and told you they were gay, you have said you would DISOWN them.

That's not love. Love is accepting what one does NOT like about a person along with what one DOES like about a person, because....well, because you LOVE them.

The same is true of love and loyalty for one's country.

So continue to LIE and call ME anti-American, when it is YOU who is truly anti-American since the only way you can deal with the FACT that this country does have faults is by looking at it through rose colored glasses and thereby turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to REALITY.

Yes- much IS good about the USA; we do enjoy many freedoms that many of us take for granted which people in other countries fight to have and die in the process.

Yes- we are respected as individuals in many ways, we can protest what we don't like about government or private businesses without fear of censure.

Yes- within our country's borders, we are free to come and go as we please without having to have any documentation of any kind to go from one state to another.

That's just THREE of MANY things I love about my country.

And unlike YOU, I accept that this country does have its faults, but that I love it anyway.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#631160 Jun 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Done that and you IGNORED it,
I have shown you several sites on the history of the gun
I have shown you several sites on the results of the use of guns
I am not here to repeatedly bang my dead against a brick wall because you are ignorant.
I did not ask for the history of the gun.

I did not ask for the potential results of the gun.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim - that guns are designed to kill.

So far, nothing...
Now the fourth time of asking and you still have not shown any bottle in stating whether you gun is designed for military/enforcement use (i.e, to kill) or sport use
Neither. They're designed to launch a projectile at high victory on an I tended trajectory.

We are talking about guns in general, not specific guns.
I really do wonder what you have got to hide here? Could it be that such mention will totally blow you stupid stance out of the water and you are too yellow to admit it?
.
Tell me have you ever considered the possibility of a PUBLIC thread? Honey, it is NOT up to you to dictate what I choose to discuss on topix. You don’t like the rules then tough, find somewhere with rules that you do like.
Nope. You will follow my rules just as you've been doing.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631161 Jun 19, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I'm not confused at all, you seem to be the one confused.
After all you are huh, and I am Aura.
But who ever said I was rational? I don't believe in god if that's rational. It doesn't mean I wont slice you apart, It means I wont have to pray for forgiveness after I do. I also think science can explain things, though I admit it could never explain why an idiot like you thinks it can rebuke me. As if you even could and as far as I'm concerned you're just a weenie headed liberal and a POS disgrace to all. So go ahead a whine some more about how you hate America is the super power and how Columbia's weapons make you cry.
But it wont matter because when I cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war , your rotting flesh with beg for burial.
Ooooh, you're so scawy, Internet tough guy. Haha. You're pathetic. Come on over to Texas. I'll show you how we party here.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#631162 Jun 19, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
In actual fact, the fossil and genetic evidence in support of evolution is irrefutable. Once again, evolution is only denied by the world's most blissfully ignorant godbots.
You truly are both a national embarrassment and an outright disgrace to the human race. You should be totally ashamed of yourself for making a complete ass of yourself on an international forum.
It's a very simple question that you know you can't answer so you resort to petty name calling like a 3rd grade child.

I agree that there's evidence supporting the fact that things can evolve, that wasn't the issue, you just tried changing the topic.

The topic was the supposed, mythical common ancestor. The one you claimed there is evidence of.

I await said evidence.

(But I'll probably just get called more names...)
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631163 Jun 19, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Pretend ? I don't pretend to be anything.
I have a picture as an avatar, what did you want it to be? Mary Poppins? Fck off you POS weenie headed liberal.
You're pretending to be a tough guy. On the Internet. Bwahahahaha. You forgot the hyphen on you're hyphenated modifier, too. You owe the taxpayers of whatever school system foolish enough to award you a diploma a refund. You have robbed them, Internet tough guy. You crack me up, Buttman.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631164 Jun 19, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
How desperate are you for your catch phrase to become mainstream?
Pretty ironic given the phrase!
They ought to name this room
"Prove someone can most more than HUH"
I bet you there will never be proof of that! Do you realize 21 out of the last 25 posts are from you and at one point you have 17 out of 18?
Calm down little fella, you are gonna give yourself an aneurism!
SOLO
Spastic Online Loser Obsesses
~snicker
Oh shut up, ex con. You're another facile, Internet tough guy, lost in a delusion.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#631166 Jun 19, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Do you really want in the middle of a cat fight? ;)
My, you DO flatter yourself.

There is NO cat fight between you and me.

NONE.

A cat fight implies that the "fight" will end either in reconciliation or at the very least, with a truce.

A cat fight implies that the opponents sense a threat or a reason to fear the person (or cat) they are fighting with.

A cat fight implies that there is a contest with equally armed opponents.

Sorry, DEAR- you and all you say and accuse me of is of so little consequence to me as to be virtually non-existent.

And thanks for confirming that you ARE the liar you are- for you DID not find and WILL not find ANY post from ME where I EVER said "self-masturbation".

You TALK trash because....well, because you ARE trash.

I'm now borrowing Catcher's white sheet (and he has been VERY nice to you, btw- and talk about a futile effort!- like trying to tame a rattlesnake) and I will go back to doing what I did for some time- ignoring you and to the point of not even SCANNING your always moronic and insipid posts.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#631167 Jun 19, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Please explain to me how anyone who brandishes a rebel flag is anything other than an enemy of the state.
Idiots who still won't accept that the South LOST.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631168 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on what positions you offer the perception is clearly of what I described.
So, you know all about her based on her posting but you claim to remain an enigma based on yours.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631169 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy, the evidence for the common ancestor is
Concession speech noted. Funny how you don't make the same case for your invisible sky daddy.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631170 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a difference between thinking an entire country is flawed versus a portion of the people are flawed.
There's also a difference in someone pointing out the flaws and someone ONLY pointing out the flaws....
Ah, yes, all the patriots who think they need guns for insurrection. Bwahahahaha.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631171 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide evidence that all life came form one life.
Prove that's a fact and not your faith in science.
Go.
That is not in any way part of evolutionary science. You keep repeating the same lies.
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631172 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide evidence of this "spranging" into existence the the universe supposedly did.
Then provide evidence that explains how.
Go.
Yeah, dirt and rib people is so much more plausible.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#631173 Jun 19, 2013
Apocalypse666 wrote:
Come on and do it.
Prove there's a god.
Don;t read off scripture or anything like that just prove there's a god.
Have you ever heard of the Kalam cosmological argument? It provides sound evidence for the existence of GOD based on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning say that if the premises are true then it logically follows that so too is the conclusion.

For example -

Premise One: All dogs are mammals -True

Premise Two: All mammals have kidneys.-True

Conclusion: Therefore all dogs have kidneys.- True

----------

So here is the Kalam cosmoligcal argument:

Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Premise Two: The universe began to exist

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence

If we use a process of elimination known as 'modus tollens', the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being. Which is the definition of God.

A typical Atheist response might be to say 'so what caused god then?'- The Response: Do to the absurdity of the INFINITE regress of causes the cause has to be an UNCAUSED cause.

- Feel free to challenge this argument -
Huh

Arlington, TX

#631174 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, lets just cut to the chase here.
My claim is that guns are designed to launch a projectile at high velocity on an intended trajectory, which is easily proven.
Your claim us that guns are designed to kill. Provide evidence for that assertion or drop it.
Why were guns invented?

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) 1 min Happy Lesbo 70,829
News Reason to cringe: Female voters react to Trump 12 min Your Ex 58
women watching men naked on webcam (Mar '12) 25 min Wankerman 70
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 37 min Gods r Delusions ... 658,684
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 39 min Hilary 98
Aguaje (Mar '11) 44 min Els 111
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 48 min Pegasus 282,974
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 2 hr Johnny 5,005
More from around the web