Prove there's a god.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

United States

#638198 Jul 8, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You know you have southerners in Cali too right?
There is fat people everywhere, they are so fat up in NYC they banned big gulps, and they don't even say y'all.
A Damn Yankee told me he learned the best saying from southerners to express himself at people he didn't like and incorporated into his vocabulary , he proceeded to show me what it was, which takes a bit of body language to say it also.
He sorta leaned back flipped up his bird finger and said
"fuck y'all"
I understand, and I don't mean to profile.

I travel a lot though, and my experience is that the obesity problem is worst in the South, closely followed by the Midwest. Omaha stands out in my mind.

No offense, Aura.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#638199 Jul 8, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Been doing some reading, and it's funny how you have dodged the questions of the poster "Waaaz up"....
Why is that? I mean you ask questions, and they respect you enough to answer them. Why cant you do the same?
Looks like he/she has exposed you as knowing their is a God, but here you are trying to disprove God..
Funny..
How would one disprove God, when nobody can prove God? Kind of an impossibility, is it not?

I think the best that anyone can do is disprove some of the stories concerning "God" that believers believe are true, and there have been many of those stories that have been proved to be untrue. That does not, in any way, disprove God, but it kind of shakes up the knowledge base, from which those who believe learn about this entity, a bit.

Our current knowledge would indicate that likely there is no God, but I doubt we will ever prove that no god exists. Even if we could reach as far out to whatever or wherever that proof might be found, and not find any, it is always possible that there is more evidence far beyond human ability to find. Personally, based on the history of the Abrahamic God beliefs, and beliefs in other gods that man has believed in, I highly doubt that anyone will ever prove the existence of God (meaning the Abrahamic God).

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638200 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:

You mean, the claim that Adam is fictional?
The evidence that Adam is fictional comes from:
1. The creation stories of the old testament do not gel with our contemporary understanding of life on this planet
1a. i.e., they're myths
Woah there. The basis of the story of Adam & Eve is that God created life.

All the evidence of our contemporary science tells us that life cannot create itself.

Where's that leave you?
2. religious explanations for phenomena do not hold up under scrutiny. Our society has utterly given up on any and all religious explanations for the nature of life, the universe, etc, in its scientific descriptions.
And by "our society", you mean atheist society.
3. The Adam and Eve story is similar to other religious myths and belongs to a class of fables called "apical ancestor stories." Like Ra the sun god, totem ancestors, the Old Man, etc., these are ancient people's scientifically ignorant ways of making sense of the world around them.
That IS the going atheist fad, but there's no evidence behind it.
3a. These stories serve specific social purposes. They exist to create in-group/out-group social bonding. They help the religious understand their place in the world by creating artificial bonds between non-kin people, metaphorical ways of communicating and shared ways of understanding experience.
That is your understanding of it, yes.

My understanding of it is that it gives us the basics to knowing and understanding God.
4. Not a single shred of evidence exists for the Adam story. Not a tiny piece. Hence you're unable to back up your claims of your religion's apical ancestors, other than through your particular mythology. So what? Lots of religions have creation myths and lots of them have apical ancestors.
Not a single shred of evidence refutes the Adam story, either. Not a tiny piece.

Sure, you can sew & weave different theories together to make it seem as such, but it's still just assertions, claims, conjecture, opinion and speculation.
5. That your mythology does not distinguish itself in any way, that you are incapable of supporting it beyond any other religion, reveals the weak foundation of its mythological explanation for reality (hence, you don't have Christian chemistry, or Christian physics - or, for that matter, Buddhist biology; my critique here is not of Christianity, but of any religious person who "knows" they have the one, true religion and that it, above all else and without any supporting evidence, is explanatory).
But I have supported it in several ways. Aubrey you're just too brainwashed to see things in any other way than you've been taught to.
6. Science sharply contrasts here, with its powerful explanations of reality and its very real efficacy. The same theory that describes evolution explains why you have genes, why your links to the past affect your current life outcome (cancer and whatnot), provides us with the tools of manipulating biology, and so on. The same physics that describes the orbits of the planets runs our daily GPS devices. Religion has nothing, nothing at all approaching this level of efficacy.
Religion never tried to, that's why.

Science has brought is no closer to God, even though many theistic scientists try and try and try, they continuously fail.

Science is the key to understanding the natural world, religion is the key to understanding the supernatural world.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638201 Jul 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not proven it to anyone, proof would be verifiable evidence.
I can't prove it to you, I've already told you that.

You've claimed to be sexually inert(or something like that). Prove it.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638202 Jul 8, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you paranoid that I am trying to "dazzle" him? Is it because I have "dazzled" you? Are you GAY?
It's obvious you are, effeminate!
Yes, you've dazzled me off my feet.

I'm bedazzled.

You're a badazzler.

Dazzle me, daddy.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#638203 Jul 8, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
These folks were "y'all" types.
Hmm...well what part of Florida ya been in? I was on vacation all last week at Fort Walton Beach...I'm a y'all kinda southern gal! Pity our type don't set well with ya! We're pretty decent people actually.:)

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#638204 Jul 8, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is a tool, nothing more. Science can only study the "already existing" laws that make up this universe. Science cannot make or creat any laws. Therefore, something is "greater" than Science and the men/women of it..
Get over yourself, AM....
That is likely true, but you being part of the group which you refer to,'science and men/women of it', that is something that you can't say with any kind of knowledge either. Certainly the most learned of scientists are far better equipped than anyone on this site to present opinions on such things.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#638205 Jul 8, 2013
undercontrolgh wrote:
Every time i see your post it makes me sick to the stomach.
The truth hurts. An addiction can be difficult to overcome and religious addiction is a mental illness not a lifestyle choice. If you're not man enough to leave your self-degrading cultist lifestyle on your own then you should seek professional help immediately, kid.

http://www.islam-watch.org/LeavingIslam/index...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638206 Jul 8, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
nooooo.... I was actually responding to nano and...... oooops.....
did I say that outloud.....????
Busted, Al.

Just.....

.....busted.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638207 Jul 8, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I ask if you/he was sure Jesus was real, I did not say positively there was no Jesus.
However, lets follow a line here; Adam and Eve did not exist (this we know for sure), therefore there was no 'Original Sin' committed in the 'Garden', therefore there was no need for Jesus to expiate our sins by being a human sacrifice to an evil God who set the whole thing up so he could watch and feel himself/his only son die in a horrible excruciating manner.
That's one insane god you got there dude.
Wow. I never thought of it that way. Nicely written :)

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638208 Jul 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
He thinks more scientifically than you could ever muster. Your mythical Adam and Eve never existed. The first modern human male and female were thousands of years apart, and the female was first.
O_o

Double Fine & Hiding say there's no such thing as a "first".

But you say there was.

Who to believe........

*shrugs*

Y'all can work it out.
Gary

Buffalo, NY

#638209 Jul 8, 2013
Hi Who:

No, not really, when one has saving faith his true desire is to do the will of God in His word. When God saves one He gives him a brand new resurrected Spirit that is born from above that is from God this is why the true believer will walk in the fruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22-23. There are many fakes out there this is for sure. However, God is real and some day we will all find out. Ever hear the old saying, better to pay now then pay later? This is the time to seek God with all your heart because time goes by like a vapor the word declare now you see him now you don't. We all have to deal with the Lord either when we are alive or on judgment day whatever comes first. Again, thank you for your input. Gary
Whos yo daddy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you're saying is that your god demands faith from every one so he can go ahead and please himself.
Rather strange, I say!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638210 Jul 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You want to get under the sheets with Catcher?
Not that there's anything wrong with that.....
Hmmm...I'll get a camera.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#638211 Jul 8, 2013
undercontrolgh wrote:
Arent there any sensible atheist out there? Please if your out there say something. Your people need some help.
Anti-theists have the intelligence, common sense and courage to reject and oppose all dogma-based indoctrination systems.

Unfortunately, you lack the capacity to become a deconverted former Muslim godbot and need professional help.

You're making a complete ass of yourself on international forum, kid.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638212 Jul 8, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
Hidingfromyou is only a 16 year old girl, trying to convince herself that she is a man!
She is a butch lesbian freak!
Woohooo! I was so very worried you'd think I was 14!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638213 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
First, that site isn't directly from scientists. Second, it's largely accurate. I would go further - we can say a lot more about their lives than you have described in that one paragraph. That's just the tip.
Third, you're being entirely dishonest here. This is your previous claim:
<quoted text>
Notice you have included the words "entire existence" and then I respond with "no arky would ever make that claim" - the claim being that we can describe their "entire existence."
Yes, we can absolutely know, with certainty, part of the neanderthal diet, how they hunting, where they got their material goods from, how they made them, how large their groups were, what their population size was, a fair chunk of both their mtDNA and nuclear DNA, seasonal habits, clothing, lifespan, gestation period, many religious ceremonies (including the ones named above - burying their dead, putting flowers on their dead) and so on.
We'll never know how they experienced, or if they enjoyed sunsets or played word games, etc. But the other stuff - how they carried out feeding themselves? That's easy.
And, yes, we absolutely know with certainty that they treated their injured. Do we subsequently "know" they therefore emotionally cared for their injured? No. But it's hard to imagine a group of social animals, somewhat similar to us, feeding the aged and infirm out of a lack of kindness.
The thing is, RR, you quite clearly don't know the first thing about how archaeology works, so your critique here is meaningless. It would be one thing if you actually knew where to critique - and, don't get me wrong, there are good critiques for some archaeology (I'm currently writing one myself). But it's like the plumber came to your house, found the problem, and you said "no, that's not it, because my walls are fine." The thing is, you're not even talking about the pipes.
From the freakin Smithsonian:

"Rethinking Neanderthals
Research suggests the so-called brutes fashioned tools, buried their dead, maybe cared for the sick and even conversed. But why, if they were so smart, did they disappear?
By Joe Alper "

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/...

Are they not scientific enough for you?

Notice that they say the evidence "suggests" blah blah blah. They don't say the evidence "proves" blah blah blah.

They admit its speculation. I'm sorry that you can't.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638214 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the pinnacle of all that is honest and good in our society. You can trust me in all things.
But...

Erm.

Uh...

You can't hold a beer in your Asian cleavage...

:p

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#638215 Jul 8, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
A writer/author IS a scholar, yes?
No. He was a journalist. Not peer reviewed, not a scientist. God, just look Hitchens up online and stop backpedaling.

Actually, watch him - he was a brilliant orator:

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#638216 Jul 8, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Potassium-argon (K-Ar) has probably the widest range.
According to McDougall and Harrison (1999, p. 11) the following assumptions must be true for computed dates to be accepted as representing the true age of the rock[4]

The parent nuclide, 40K, decays at a rate independent of its physical state and is not affected by differences in pressure or temperature. This is a well founded major assumption, common to all dating methods based on radioactive decay. Although changes in the electron capture partial decay constant for 40K possibly may occur at high pressures, theoretical calculations indicate that for pressures experienced within a body of the size of the Earth the effects are negligibly small.[1]
The 40K/39K ratio in nature is constant so the 40K is rarely measured directly, but is assumed to be 0.0117% of the total potassium. Unless some other process is active at the time of cooling, this is a very good assumption for terrestrial samples.[5]
The radiogenic argon measured in a sample was produced by in situ decay of 40K in the interval since the rock crystallized or was recrystallized. Violations of this assumption are not uncommon. Well-known examples of incorporation of extraneous 40Ar include chilled glassy deep-sea basalts that have not completely outgassed preexisting 40Ar*,[6] and the physical contamination of a magma by inclusion of older xenolitic material. The Ar–Ar dating method was developed to measure the presence of extraneous argon.
Great care is needed to avoid contamination of samples by absorption of nonradiogenic 40Ar from the atmosphere. The equation may be corrected by subtracting from the 40Armeasured value the amount present in the air where 40Ar is 295.5 times more plentiful than 36Ar. 40Ardecayed = 40Armeasured &#8722; 295.5 × 36Armeasured.
The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of 40K or 40Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of 40K. Departures from this assumption are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history, but such departures can provide useful information that is of value in elucidating thermal histories. A deficiency of 40Ar in a sample of a known age can indicate a full or partial melt in the thermal history of the area. Reliability in the dating of a geological feature is increased by sampling disparate areas which have been subjected to slightly different thermal histories.[7]
Both flame photometry and mass spectrometry are destructive tests, so particular care is needed to ensure that the aliquots used are truly representative of the sample. Ar–Ar dating is a similar technique which compares isotopic ratios from the same portion of the sample to avoid this problem.

Shew...that's a lot of assumptions...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#638217 Jul 8, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
It would alter my belief system substantially. Given that I'm an atheist, I'd say that evidence that Adam and Eve existed - say we found Eden - would threaten my belief system, absolutely. But so what? I'd have to change. If my beliefs are incompatible with the universe, then I am no longer capable of producing accurate science - I'd have to search for different answers.
At the point where a creator-deity was discovered, I'd have to dramatically realign my non-created view of the universe and biology to a created one. Currently, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, so the reality of that would suggest the Creator is deceptive and enjoys scientists doing the wrong thing. Or that the Creator is not all-powerful and a trickster/liar deity co-exists with It.
That's sort of like me asking you "So, if the Mayan gods turned out to exist, and your deity was some kind of devil or something, would that change your belief system?"
The answer can only be "yes" followed by "uh, that would be awkward."
I totally appreciate your honesty. I think you're the first (or at least one of few) atheists here that will admit to having beliefs.

You have RR's respect.

You want lettuce on that sammich?

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) 12 min lightbeamrider 52,442
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 15 min Robert F 693,342
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 18 min texas pete 2,477
Walgreens is owned by Christ-rejecting Jews 18 min Doctor REALITY 12
Skype gay sex (Dec '14) 1 hr daddy 28
Jake Tapper: I Lied About Trump S Hole Comment 3 hr Haha 2
Liberals The Party Of Perversion 3 hr Hallejula 1
More from around the web