Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642355 Jul 18, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>No, 5' 1" and 97 lbs is skinny and frail. Compared to me Trayvon is the Hulk.
5'1"....?

97lbs...?

Dayum...

I'm like two of you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642356 Jul 18, 2013
Covert Stealth Op wrote:
ZIMMERMAN WAS AN ALMOST 30 YEAR OLD WHITE HISPANIC
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

"White Hispanic"

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642357 Jul 18, 2013
Religionthebiglie wrote:
<quoted text>
If the god thinks it doesn't believe it has a creator, it is an atheist. There's no way around it.
Is that so?

How have you come to this conclusion?
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642358 Jul 18, 2013
Covert Stealth Op wrote:
I know the OJ jurist were racist, but mostly white. Strange.
It's truly strange that you post definitively wrong statements in coming to unjustifiable positions then never have the guts to admit your wrong. You're a moron with a humongous ego and should be shunned by everyone.

For the record, Fuhrman didn't have an opportunity to plant evidence. The racist jury was predominantly black and the defense played the race card to get an obviously guilty client off.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites

The Jury By Sex: 10 Women, 2 Men

Some other facts about the final jury:

(1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows,

(2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member,

(3) all were Democrats,

(4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police,

(5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642359 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have not been paying attention
I'm so broke, I can't even *pay* attention.

HA!

Get it?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642360 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.*you* have given he defintion of magic. The Genesis account -in particular, the serpent/snake story, fits no natural law.
Therefore, magic was involved, as per your definition.
No. You mean it involves no natural law or explanation that we know of.

This is how the atheists seem to see it - I f we can't explain it,***magic***.
Also. Cursed the snake in a natural way? So god cursed the snake 200 million years ago to evolve into a snake, and to offer Eve an apple after 199 million years of evolution?
Play your definition game... Magic is all it is ever going to be
In your oh-so-closed mind, sure.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642361 Jul 18, 2013
Covert Stealth Op wrote:
HERE IS THE THING. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN, GOD SAYS SO.
No one should be surprised that this especially revolting religiously retarded imbecilic sociopathic evolution and death denying cowardly fundiseased redneck godbot with pig shit for brains is a homophobic azzhole without any socially redeemable qualities.

Your imaginary friend has never uttered a single word. No one should respond to this stark raving mad insane lunatic ever again.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642362 Jul 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
That's why OJ got away with it, the police tainted the evidence.
The defense wanted the jury to believe that ALL of the blood evidence was tainted. It was a ludicrous argument, but the jury desperately wanted to believe that ALL of the blood evidence was tainted.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642363 Jul 18, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume at some point when you were at the church, you were paying tithes. 10% of so I presume? And okay, after all your "soul searching" or whatever, you concluded Christianity is nonsense, and so you left the church.
So, what happened to those tithes? If you had decided "Christianity is nonsense, I'm not paying for this scam", why didn't you decide further "Okay, from now on, I'm not paying to the church, but I'll start my own 10% saving and make an impact my own way, since I still care deeply for humanity"?
You could've done that. But you didn't. And you are not a lawyer, and there's not much rights left to fight for in South Africa even if you were. How many rallies for rights did you attend, at least as a minion holding a placard?
And this is where your credibility goes, especially in the third world. Many people observing just look at, for example, what a prominent Christian is doing. An observer looks at perhaps the Christians frugal lifestyle (I'm talking about one of these proper Christians), or how much he forsakes to help others, the sacrifices, the basic but crucial life skills he imparts on others. Such an observer can be taken aback and think "If this is what Christianity turned that man into, I want to become a Christian". They overlook the many things that don't make sense, and focus on the effort.
You can't just be crying secular humanism. You have to get down to the basics and put your money where you claim your ideals are. That's one thing I admire about Richard Dawkins. Sure, I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he has his own foundation and he is putting his own money into the secular humanistic endeavours he claims to believe in.
I never gave that much whilst a churchgoer. Always gave one of the shiny coins. Now, I actually give a lot more. But to seperate charities. I give to PAP (the anti-poaching folks), sometimes to a children's home near me, mostly to the shark convervation projects. Do I keep the account seperate? No.

What I like about this, is I get allocate where the money goes. I am not buying a preacher a Mercedes SL or Toyota Prado. I am not paying for sermons to people, telling them how great a certain mythology is.
Myth Buster

Prescott, AZ

#642364 Jul 18, 2013
True Bullshit wrote:
Moreover, humans will never completely be logical, since humans are emotional beings as well.
No brainwashed religious godbot is capable of being logical regarding their cult's dogma or they'd abandon their self-degrading cultist lifestyle. You'll never be man enough to be logical, kid.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642365 Jul 18, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said, my good friend.
Thank you, kind sir

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642366 Jul 18, 2013
WTF?

I get up this morning and there are actually some intelligent and rational discussions going on.

Nah.. I must still be asleep.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642367 Jul 18, 2013
Myth Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if Zimmerman received any Neighborhood Watch training. If he had been advised not to be armed or confront suspicious characters then he should have been convicted, but not of the charges filed against him.
This case demonstrated the need for improved Neighborhood Watch training. It also demonstrated the hypocrisy of the media in reporting a non-black on black crime as if they were trying to provoke a race war.
Yo.

This side we have a very tragic shooting incident involving Oscar Pistorius, the Paralympic hero. I believe the general public are far to casual with a weapon capable of ending a life.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642368 Jul 18, 2013
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/1...

This ought to boost enrollment in the Catholic Church.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642370 Jul 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You mean it involves no natural law or explanation that we know of.
This is how the atheists seem to see it - I f we can't explain it,***magic***.
<quoted text>
In your oh-so-closed mind, sure.
Your first point is utterly stupid sorry to say. By saying that, we can call ANYTHING simply a natural law we do not yet understand. For example, Potter flies on a broom. "It is not magic, it is simply a natural law we donot yet understand." That is a ridiculously stupid argument.

Genesis 1 conforms to no natural law. Period. Much of it is defined as magic, as per your definition.

As for your second point: the fossil record shows snakes appearing 200 million years ago. Modern humans only 200,000. What natural law do you think we have wrong now?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642371 Jul 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
WTF?
I get up this morning and there are actually some intelligent and rational discussions going on.
Nah.. I must still be asleep.
You can thank the South Africans on the thread

:)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642372 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first point is utterly stupid sorry to say. By saying that, we can call ANYTHING simply a natural law we do not yet understand. For example, Potter flies on a broom. "It is not magic, it is simply a natural law we donot yet understand." That is a ridiculously stupid argument.
Genesis 1 conforms to no natural law. Period. Much of it is defined as magic, as per your definition.
As for your second point: the fossil record shows snakes appearing 200 million years ago. Modern humans only 200,000. What natural law do you think we have wrong now?
Yup, there's more of that atheist childishness. Y'all love to compare the Bible to Hairy Pooter or Santa becuase you need it dumbed down to understand it - or you just like talking shit - or you just don't understand what you're talking about so you poke fun.

Really? 200 million years? I've read otherwise. I've seen as early as 50,000 years ago to 150 million years, but never 200 million. I've also read that the origin of snakes is unknown. What say you?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#642373 Jul 18, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, there's more of that atheist childishness. Y'all love to compare the Bible to Hairy Pooter or Santa becuase you need it dumbed down to understand it - or you just like talking shit - or you just don't understand what you're talking about so you poke fun.
Really? 200 million years? I've read otherwise. I've seen as early as 50,000 years ago to 150 million years, but never 200 million. I've also read that the origin of snakes is unknown. What say you?
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.

2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#642374 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.
2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.
1. No, I posted the definition of magic as "The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces". If you want to consider "God magic", that's your call.

2. The "guy" who said unknown is Wikipedia. I can't post the link right now, but google 'snake wiki', it's in section 2.1,'origins'; "The origin of snakes remains an unresolved issue."

How is 150mya 'about right' and 200mya is also right? That's a 50 MILLION year difference....

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#642375 Jul 18, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
1) You have a figure that bends or breaks laws of nature. That, according to your definition, not mine, is magic. Plain and simple. Bo getting away from that.
2) The guy who said unknown is not to be believed. The guy who said 50,000 years is a loon. 150 mya is about right. The earliest transitional fossils show dates at roughly 200 mya. That is the transitional fossil though. From there, they became more snake like. In fact, If some palaeontologist tells us that the first modern snakes lived 150 mya, I would say that jibes with the hypothesis.
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~brm2286/locomot...

Snakes understand physics.

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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min New Age Spiritual... 670,395
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 5 min RiversideRedneck 100,713
No Walls! Don't fence Me In! 16 min Tony 30
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 24 min Tony 6,148
the telomere 1 hr Kimberly2017 3
secret weapon contributing to global chaos...pa... 1 hr Kimberly2017 6
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr waaasssuuup 445,657
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) Wed Pegasus 286,455
More from around the web