Prove there's a god.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#702829 Mar 16, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Be glad, I'm addictive.
I get the avatar.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702830 Mar 16, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Your church. Have you heard of damnation? What kind of monster keeps souls conscious for eternity for no other benefit except to make them scream in agony? And the crime? Failure to fawn and grovel. Why do you defend such a monster? You also worship it.
tricki wrote:
whose benefit?
Whoever is benefiting by making souls in hell scream, probably the one who decided they should. That would be your god.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
god keeps souls conscious? you mean like god gives us stomachs to experience hunger?
No.

You really are depressing
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The crime? Failure to fawn and grovel. funny. that's what you do 24/7. The monster is you and your sick mind and soul. you want hell. why always whine about your decision? if it's so bad, don't go. but stop witching all the time, you know? good luck. have a blast. quit crying. god bless you, you in your way, me in mine, i don't really mind
I mind. I mind what they did to you. I can't help but believe that you would have been a better person had you been raised a better way.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702831 Mar 16, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The scientific consensus used to say spontaneous generation is true, go ahead and teach it. Brain dead followers like you went along with it, asking no questions. They were happy enough that there was a scientific consensus. A show of hands, even from your mighty scientists, means nothing. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" -Galileo
I don't think you understand what we mean by science today. It's not science until it's vetted by the full process.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702832 Mar 16, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ok, Mr "the rest of us can justifiably come to conclusion by a consensus". The consensus among historians and authors wield wide is that Jesus Christ existed. So.....
Consensus is not enough.

There needs to be evidence that confirms that the source is reliable. I have evidence that the consensus of scientists can be trusted to be correct, that is, to know what they are talking about and report it accurately. That evidence is the fruits of their labors, things like these computers. It confirms that their method generates real knowledge

The evidence for the consensus of theologians and believers is the opposite. Faith is sterile. It has never revealed anything of value - never yielded a single idea that improved the human condition. Faith and religion could never have given us computers, air conditioning, antibiotics, electric power, automobiles, or any of the other things that make life better.

But it has caused people to hate, fight, and waste vast quantities of precious resources.

Thus, I have reason to trust the consensus of evidence based thinkers like the scientists, but not the consensus of faith based thinkers.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702833 Mar 16, 2014
tricki wrote:
CALLING ALL ATHEISTS
THIS CHICK AIN'T RIGHT
GET HER TESTED
any other atheist see her mistake?
<quoted text>
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen - nothing else matters."
What kind of thinking is that? It says that nothing matters whether Christ is risen or not.
<quoted text>
The comment is of the form
If A, then B.
If not-A, then B.
We can conclude that B is the case, whether A or not-A
A is "Christ is risen"
not-A is "Christ" is not risen
B is "nothing matters"
We can conclude that nothing matters, whether Christ is risen or not.
This is formal logic. It seems like many of you have never learned to think in this manner. That's a shame. It's how mathematics, science, and philosophy are done.
You missed some important and valuable lessons. This is the kind of thinking that allows you to come to logically valid conclusions. If you had learned to do this, you might have come to many different conclusions than you have. You might have rejected some of the conclusions that you embraced instead.
that is incorrect, any atheists want to help her out? i already told you what to do. are there Ph.D/MDs who have faith in your religion, who could test you for LD?
that is not what it says. sadly, she is being perfectly straightforward. she is not manipulating or twisting intentionally
You need a complete neuropsychological workup and a battery of tests to measure fluid g (fg). You have a specific deficit, like dyslexia but with sentences and not letters, though you may have that, too
You're a mess.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702834 Mar 16, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There's more criticism than that.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
You say persecution but it's actually anti-Christian sentiment.
I called incarceration for public proselytizing religious intolerance. Carrying signs denouncing religion is not intolerance. The church is not protected from the democratic process.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Like how the FFRC fights day and night in an attempt to remove any and all religious items from public view.
That is incorrect. Feel free to put a crucifix around your neck, a Jesus fish on your bumper, and a creche on your lawn at Christmas.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
It how Jay Ballinger burned down over 50 churches.
Never heard of him until now. He was prosecuted and incarcerated for arson and causing a death. Did you have a point?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Anti-Christian sentiment happens every day, all over the world by people like you that falsely promote peace and tolerance.
As I said, you enjoy tolerance, and peace as well. You are not entitled to be sheltered from criticism or anti-Christian sentiment as long as its peaceful.

Maybe you should think about why there is so much anti-Christian sentiment and why it seems to be increasing rather than complaining about it. God forbid you should assume any responsibility for it or even consider that it is just.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702835 Mar 16, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
I'll be glad to finish your post for you. So.....you're [RiversideRedneck] an idiot.
But like an unattractive person who goes out clubbing with even homelier people, RR benefits from being in the company of tricki and KiMare.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702836 Mar 16, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
Well did he hatch?
Are you assuming that the biblical Jesus and his twelve disciples lived as described in the New Testament? He could be anywhere from mythical to a legend, and the legend could be based on the life of one man or many. We just don't know.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#702837 Mar 16, 2014
Ar aR wrote:
lie
verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
http://i.word.com/idictionary/lie
It aint necessarily so wrote:
You effed up cutting and pasting? How is that possible?
Ar aR wrote:
Would you have preferred this:

Main Entry: 3lie
Pronunciation:\&#712;l &#299;\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing \&#712;l&#299;-i&# 331;\
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English l&#275;ogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic l&#365;gati
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The "interweb dotcoms" are like a darkened maze to Ar aR, and the Satan! with his daemons is out there "a foolin" him 'round every link and corner.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702838 Mar 16, 2014
Ghost Writer wrote:
In historical matters there are a couple of common mistakes made.
1) The historian's fallacy occurs when a person assumes that a decision or action from the past is based upon having the same perspective and information as those who are presently analyzing the decision or action.
2) Presentism is a sub-type of the historian's fallacy in which a person assumes that present day concepts such as modern moral standards should also apply to past cultures.
I expect the message from a deity to be timeless. If you have to explain why the message is being misunderstood today by invoking naturalistic processes due to language and worldviews evolving, then you're talking about the words of men.
Ghost Writer wrote:
Both 1 and 2 are common mistakes made by the "Jesus Mythers" and is the biggest reason why the majority of Jesus Mythers are here on the internet. They have no credibility outside the internet in the real academic world of scholars who study this subject.
The Internet is not a source. It is a medium. The "Jesus Mythers" are in the world, some lecturing, some writing books, and probably all of prominent ones represented on the Internet.

The issue of Jesus' historicity is only of academic or historical interest to unbelievers. It is an interesting topic, but it really doesn't matter beyond that whether Jesus actually existed if he wasn't also a god. It doesn't matter if or what he preached if it wasn't an accurate metaphysics. And it doesn't matter if he was crucified if he wasn't also revivified.
tricki

Douglassville, PA

#702839 Mar 16, 2014
God is. Doesn't matter what you think.
tricki

Douglassville, PA

#702840 Mar 16, 2014
feces for jesus wrote:
<quoted text>
Still puking about your religions lie of "hell", huh? You've got nothing but empty words. Hell isn't in the bible, dimwit. You're full of feces for jesus; a liar for your faith.
He don't exist you moron!

But you stink
tricki

Douglassville, PA

#702841 Mar 16, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you assuming that the biblical Jesus and his twelve disciples lived as described in the New Testament? He could be anywhere from mythical to a legend, and the legend could be based on the life of one man or many. We just don't know.
You don't know!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#702842 Mar 16, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I've argued with atheists about gut feelings, intuition, and how they can't be proven but still exist, like many things. They like to argue that only what can be proven exists.
That is what believers say we argue. But you should ask us what we believe if you care about accuracy.

I have great respect for intuition. It's actually the most fundamental of the three categories Ghost Writer named. You may have seen where I rebutted his claim that science and scientism overlooks intuition with, "Intuition figures most in the creative aspects of science, such as hypothesis formation, experimental set-up, induction of laws from data, and theory generation"

Intuition is the foundation for all thought and belief. How do I know that there is really a world outside of my senses responsible for the phenomena of consciousness I experience (strong solipsism < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism > )? I don't.I can't. It is merely an irresistible intuition.

Intuition is at play any time you say, "I cannot make an argument (rationalism) or show you (empiricism) why I believe what I do, but I claim to know it anyway."

My intuition that there is an outside world causing and corresponding to my apparent awareness of it is the foundational intuition logically preceding empiricism.

And pure reason such as mathematics and formal logic is also grounded in intuitions - things that we believe are true beyond doubt, but which we can neither demonstrate nor prove. We cal them axioms.

As I just explained, intuition is a critical part of our intellection (learning, reason, recall), but it also plays a critical role in our other types of conscious perception and experience. How do we know what is beautiful, or funny? Intuition. As I said, whenever you find yourself saying "I don't know how I know - I can't show it or explain it - I just know," that is intuition. The artist's inspiration is intuition.

You prefer to oversimplify unbelievers and put words in our mouths. But you are simply wrong about this like you are about almost everything else we discuss.
iluvmyfoot

Springfield, IL

#702843 Mar 16, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you assuming that the biblical Jesus and his twelve disciples lived as described in the New Testament? He could be anywhere from mythical to a legend, and the legend could be based on the life of one man or many. We just don't know.
"We just dont know". Look around at the primitive human animal, they are 100% positive that God(s) are real. Add the Devil, good and evil....and the story seems real. In the womb, a baby is saturated with Bible babble. At birth, they learn to worship and act a certain way. They are forced to read and believe without questioning the truth of what they are reading. With that, humans with the current information all clueless to the trurth.
Scrooge

Scottsdale, AZ

#702844 Mar 16, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
I don't understand why some atheists and agnostics think that all faith is blind faith.
Religious faith is blind because there's absolutely no scientific evidence in support of religious dogma, but you're too mentally retarded to understand facts in contradiction to your programming. You're an utterly despicable coward!
Scrooge

Scottsdale, AZ

#702845 Mar 16, 2014
karl44 wrote:
so
you are, a paranoid whack job
Ghost Writer is a completely brainwashed cowardly paranoid whack job.
Scrooge

Scottsdale, AZ

#702846 Mar 16, 2014
andet1987 wrote:
so you mean to say those millions and millions of believers around the world are insane ?
A person lacking the capacity to differentiate fantasy from reality is insane. By definition, all "believers" are insane.
Scrooge

Scottsdale, AZ

#702847 Mar 16, 2014
tricki wrote:
God is. Doesn't matter what you think.
The god delusion is real. It doesn't matter whether you ever have the guts to seek professional help for your delusions, you sick f*ck!

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#702848 Mar 16, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you assuming that the biblical Jesus and his twelve disciples lived as described in the New Testament? He could be anywhere from mythical to a legend, and the legend could be based on the life of one man or many. We just don't know.
I think he may have, but not like the mythology or cult representation created about him.
But if there really was a Jesus, then he surely wasn't spontaneously implanted in his mother.
Or hatched, I would suffice two say he would have have to come into this world in the usual way.

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) 2 min River Tam 48,376
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 min spinosaurus baryonyx 618,563
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 9 min Rosa_Winkel 445,708
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Rosesz 646,491
Jesus and Muhammad were FRAUDS 14 min Truthiness 5
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 17 min Toby 105,567
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 49 min onemale 281,238
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 6 hr Freebird USA 182,639
More from around the web