Prove there's a god.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643857 Jul 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What you don’t seem to understand is that the only embarrassment here is that of your own deliberate ignorance. You have been provided with links to improve your education and you, like the deliberately ignorant nano that you are have simply ignored those links in favour if personal belief and spite.
You are too stupid to realise that people are laughing at you, not with you but you are free to laugh hysterically at your deliberate ignorance through the bars of your locked and padded room.
Facts are facts, nono BS is nano BS
Shaddup, tardwad.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#643858 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You act as if science and religion are at war....
<quoted text>
Do you perpetuate that "war"?
Or do you try to find a middle ground?
Huh? There is no middle ground. There aren't even two polar grounds here.

Religion is just one more aspect of human behavior to be analyzed. It's a subject of science, not an informant of science.

You favor your religion, and imagine it to be somehow justifiably worthy of being somehow connected to science, but no. Nothing special separates your religion from any other; there's no reason to use any particular religion to inform science and find a "half=-way."

At this point, all religious precepts have been discounted. There's no bias here. All religions enjoy equal evidence, which is to say, none.

The fact that you write it as if we're supposed to assume your religion has some sort of precedence is not unexpected. All believers "know" their religion is the one, true religion and so would innately believe, without objective reason, that their religion meshes with science.

Sorry, but science doesn't. It deals purely with the material.

But you can change that! Just name one concrete way in which we can know that your religion, above all other religions, is real, the one, true religion.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643859 Jul 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that you are unable to understand the science, you do not see the light, you see the effects of the light. Your eyes react to photons which are far too small to be seen. You think you see the light because your brain is telling you that the radiation your eyes have detected has been interpreted as light.
Which I know for a fact is a fact that the links I provided support
i.e. Each photon has a chance to be absorbed by the molecules in the rods and cones. This light energy is used to convert molecules in the cell to a higher energy state which sets off a cascade of flowing charges, becoming a signal to the brain.
And
When one of these photons enters your eye, these cells convert its energy into a nerve signal that registers in your brain.
Just because SF programs show green sh|t shooting out of space guns does not mean you can see light, FYI, those are just film effects to make it easier for people like you to comprehend that the bad guys are shooting.
You are the one who doesn't understand what you are reading, idjit. The links you have left do not back up the claims you make.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643860 Jul 22, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove there's a god.
So far none of our "simple minded" have offered a shred of proof. They are so confused, deeply held beliefs are not proof no matter how much and how often they claim they are.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#643861 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"No, I will not thank a god for healthy kids. Because, he has nothing to do with healthy kids."
"He can take care of the rich kids (because of healthcare, etc)"
You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
It was intended.

Your god seems to be only able to care fkr the rich kids

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#643862 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You act as if science and religion are at war....
<quoted text>
Do you perpetuate that "war"?
Or do you try to find a middle ground?
Any system of indoctrination is wrong. Believing something that is wrong brings nothing good. So yes, I perpetuate it.

However,I do not use weapons

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643863 Jul 22, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
I never made the claim that my mother loves me or exists.
But, since you bring it up...
I'm proof that my mother exists.
She's proof that she exists.
Her love for me has been demonstrated.
Now...
Prove there's a god.
It is clear that our "simple minded" fundies have no proof for their claim that such a thing as their invisible sky Santa actually exists outside of their polluted imaginations.

No proof = no God.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#643864 Jul 22, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? There is no middle ground. There aren't even two polar grounds here.
Religion is just one more aspect of human behavior to be analyzed. It's a subject of science, not an informant of science.
You favor your religion, and imagine it to be somehow justifiably worthy of being somehow connected to science, but no. Nothing special separates your religion from any other; there's no reason to use any particular religion to inform science and find a "half=-way."
At this point, all religious precepts have been discounted. There's no bias here. All religions enjoy equal evidence, which is to say, none.
The fact that you write it as if we're supposed to assume your religion has some sort of precedence is not unexpected. All believers "know" their religion is the one, true religion and so would innately believe, without objective reason, that their religion meshes with science.
Sorry, but science doesn't. It deals purely with the material.
But you can change that! Just name one concrete way in which we can know that your religion, above all other religions, is real, the one, true religion.
I know! Those giant humans Kent Hovind brags about!

Screw the peer review process. It is a waste of time

*please do not take Double Fine seriously*

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643865 Jul 22, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>This is the U.S.A.; people can still think as they please, freak.
There has been no evidence that St. Paul's "simple minded" think.

No proof = no God.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643866 Jul 22, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
You know. Don't act like you don't.
Exactly. RR knows exactly what this discussion thread is all about, an opportunity for him to present his proof that his assertion that a magical supernatural invisible beings exists, wrote a book and created the Universe although it has no creator itself.

He exists to waste our time because he has no proof:

No proof = no God.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643867 Jul 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually both of them are idiotic, but have the elements of a good entertaining movies. But the science in both of them are dumb.
For one , what makes anyone think aliens would have symmetry , faces or be humanoid in appearance?
True enough.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/03/...

And there's always the possibility that, if any exist, they might be observable, "dimensionally". There are things that our naked eyes cannot see and "alien" doesn't necessarily mean they have to have originated "inside" the universe we see.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643868 Jul 22, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe you prefer the ancient Spartans idea of love and romance? Men weren't much more civilized than jackals in those days. Not towards women anyway.
And maybe you prefer lying to telling the truth. And if men behaved badly towards women I blame your stupid Bible.

In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance, and even fewer are worthy of emulation. Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:12-14, NIV)." Is it any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative? With his usual wit, Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p.358)." One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests? To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only to well: "...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16)." "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;....(1 Cor. 11:3)." "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor. 11:9)." "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing (Eph. 5:22-24)." Anyone desiring more proof should read: Deut. 21:10-14, 24:1-4, Judges 5:30, Esther 1:20-22, Rom. 7:2, 1 Col. 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1, Lev. 12:2, 5, Gen. 3:20.

If these are not sufficient, there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists try to soft-pedal the entire matter, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul, but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is it any wonder that feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman's emancipation (Free Thought Magazine, Vol. 14, 1896)." "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women (Eight Years and More, Elizabeth C. Stanton, p. 395)." Not to be outdone, Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it (the bible) is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil--as mere property (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 12, p.43)." "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man.... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p. 396)." But, perhaps, George Foote made the most poignant comment of all: "It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643869 Jul 22, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been no evidence that St. Paul's "simple minded" think.
No proof = no God.
Your first sentence has bad syntax, please reword it so it's understandable.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643870 Jul 22, 2013
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
<quoted text>
No...
You jumped the gun and called me a liar.
I went back and looked. I understand now. You thought my comment about 'never having heard of most of those' was in response to another's post regarding a few authors you hate. It wasn't.
You're excused.
Mental gimp! Back in the box with you!

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643871 Jul 22, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
And maybe you prefer lying to telling the truth. And if men behaved badly towards women I blame your stupid Bible.
In both the Old and New Testaments women are assigned a position not appreciably different from that of domestic servants. Their status is demeaning, debilitating, and wholly incompatible with self-respect and confidence. Except for Mary, Eve, Ruth, Sarah, Rachel, and a few lesser figures, few biblical women have roles of significance, and even fewer are worthy of emulation. Eve, for example, is blamed for the creation of Original Sin. The Bible says as much: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim. 2:12-14, NIV)." Is it any wonder that women's groups oppose this narrative? With his usual wit, Ingersoll once observed: "...nearly every religion has accounted for all the devilment in this world by the crime of woman. What a gallant thing that is! And if it is true, I had rather live with the woman I love in a world full of trouble, than to live in heaven with nothing but men (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p.358)." One of the saddest and most perplexing dilemmas one can experience in modern society is confronting women who strongly believe and defend a book that so clearly assigns them a degrading and subservient status. How do you reach those who are defending a philosophy that is so totally opposed to their interests? To use the vernacular, the Bible is sexist and permeated with male supremacy, as the following verses show only to well: "...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16)." "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;....(1 Cor. 11:3)." "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man (1 Cor. 11:9)." "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing (Eph. 5:22-24)." Anyone desiring more proof should read: Deut. 21:10-14, 24:1-4, Judges 5:30, Esther 1:20-22, Rom. 7:2, 1 Col. 3:18, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Peter 3:1, Lev. 12:2, 5, Gen. 3:20.
If these are not sufficient, there are more. The evidence is overwhelming. Apologists try to soft-pedal the entire matter, but facts are stubborn things. It isn't just Paul, but the entire Bible that's guilty. Is it any wonder that feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, once said: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of woman's emancipation (Free Thought Magazine, Vol. 14, 1896)." "I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women (Eight Years and More, Elizabeth C. Stanton, p. 395)." Not to be outdone, Ingersoll again displayed his wisdom by saying: "...it (the bible) is not the friend of woman. They will find that the writers of that book, for the most part, speak of woman as a poor beast of burden, a serf, a drudge, a kind of necessary evil--as mere property (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 12, p.43)." "As long as woman regards the Bible as the charter of her rights, she will be the slave of man. The Bible was not written by a woman. Within its lids there is nothing but humiliation and shame for her. She is regarded as the property of man.... She is as much below her husband, as her husband is below Christ (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. I, p. 396)." But, perhaps, George Foote made the most poignant comment of all: "It will be the proud boast of woman that she never contributed a line to the Bible."
I don't care how they treated each other back then, why do you?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#643872 Jul 22, 2013
Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
Why do atheists fear God?<quoted text>
Why do theists insist that there is a God? All of the proof says otherwise. And I'll be happy to prove that God does not exist, and I be happy to do so just as soon as you are finished presenting your proof that it does.

No proof = No God.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643873 Jul 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You seem to miss the point , you are reducing vision to a neural process , and then calling it something else.
Vision by what ever process is vision, and we see light by it in the visible light range. You are saying we can't see anything that it is a brain process, true enough but that's just the way we see things.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that one to become untarded.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643874 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, my iPhone was made in the US...
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
well aren't you special...
"Most of us probably already know why Apple outsources their manufacturing. Money. Not only is it cheaper to outsource to China, you can also hire workers much faster than in the US. Jennifer Rigoni, Apple’s former Worlwide Supply Demand Manager said “They could hire 3,000 people overnight. What U.S. plant can find 3,000 people overnight and convince them to live in dorms?”.
“The entire supply chain is in China now,” said another former high-ranking Apple executive.“You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That’s the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away. You need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours.”
'twas a joke, ole chap.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#643875 Jul 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez, I'm sorry. Is that a "real" picture of Batman you got there?
lol

Don't make me post the laughing, farting kitty again!

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#643876 Jul 22, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Pomona isn't brain dead - far from it.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me, she's my shining knight, my response when I'm speechless, to the ridiculous, uneducated, unintellectual hatred that so many Christians post here.
Just as I don't see the trash that atheists post, Al, you don't see the trash that Christians post.
The difference between what, say, Dr. Shrink posts and what Pomona posts is that Pomona actually cares. She is deeply, deeply worried about people - you can see that in her absolute rejection of violence. Not a single time has Pomona threatened violence.
Yet I have been threatened so many times, Al, by people who believe they are Christians. Rape, murder, torture - whatever. Just show me a single quote where Pomona advocated such terrible, mindless, dehumanizing tactics, a single post.
It doesn't happen. She's harsh, yes, and she is nasty in her conveyance of what she believes to be a psychological problem, but she never, not once to my knowledge, advocates for violence.
And I will defend her.
I didn't expect that from you, Hiding.

Mythic Idiot is a troll, all she does is spew hatred, call people vile and vulgar names, and display ignorance every time she posts.

I thought you were more logical to accept that kind of posting, from either side of the fence.

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) 38 min RW lies and malfe... 88,118
loan shark needed asap (Mar '09) 2 hr Steve Carl 20
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 3 hr Tony 6,921
How many MILLIONS of MEXICAN MEN R N in U.S. IL... 3 hr Mr magoo goo guy... 32
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr The AnswerTo 1984... 703,712
Is a career in web development rewarding? 4 hr keith29 1
Traveling to Peru next month. Hope everything g... 4 hr austin02 1