Prove there's a god.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#711915 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Good analogies.
You know your coffee pot is cracked, you have evidence of that. You don't know how it cracked though, you're speculating on how it happened. Plus, you don't know when it happened, that would also be speculation. Plus, you don't know if the crack started at the top or at the bottom, that is also speculation. The one and only fact that you have is that the glass is cracked, everything else is not a fact.
I like your coffee pot analogy....it's kinda' like the Christian propensity to take a verse or two from the Bible and assume all kinds of crap from them. You know its not true....but they wish sooo hard that it was.

Silly Christian

“Faith = Trust”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#711916 Apr 5, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
continued:
The commentaries he cites to prove verse 27 is not part of the pounds parable are as follows:
(1) Dummelow Bible Commentary, N.Y., 1922, page 765, notes that verse 27 has nothing to do with the servants who managed money, but 'describes the final punishment of those who reject Christ.'
Let's take a closer look at the Dummelow commentary, shall we?
http://www.studylight.org/com/dcb/view.cgi...

11-27. Parable of the Pounds (peculiar to Lk, but similar to the Parable of the Talents, Matthew 25:14, q.v.). It differs from that parable,(1) in the introduction of the rebellious citizens, Luke 19:14, Luke 19:27; (2) in its graduation of the rewards and punishments of the next world; (3) in representing future bliss as a state of social activity in a perfect community.

The nobleman (Luke 19:12) is Christ Himself, who goes into a far country (heaven), to receive for Himself a kingdom (almighty power over the universe), and to return (at the Second Advent). He calls His ten servants (all the members of His Church), and entrusts them with a pound each (i.e. all their bodily, mental, and spiritual capacities). The citizens who hate Him are all the enemies of Christ. They are called His citizens, because even the wicked are by right His subjects, seeing that He has created and redeemed them. On His return (to judge the world), He summons the ten servants (such Christians -as appear to have been faithful to their trust), and enquires what use they have made of the capacities and opportunities entrusted to them. Some have made great use, others little, others none at all; and are accordingly recompensed, some by being placed over ten cities (a great reward), others over five cities (a less reward), others by being entirely excluded from all the rewards of the future kingdom. The taking of the pound from the man who did not use it, signifies that faculties, which are not used, are finally lost; and the giving of the pound to him who had ten already, signifies that those faculties which are rightly used are capable of indefinite increase. The ten cities and the five cities indicate the different kinds of employment assigned in heaven to persons of different spiritual capacity. They also, perhaps, indicate different states of blessedness assigned to the saved in accordance with their behaviour in the previous state of probation on earth. In the corresponding parable in Mt the teaching is different. There all the faithful servants show the same diligence, and receive the same reward. The slaying of the rebellious citizens (Luke 19:27) represents the judgment of the wicked at the Last Day. This parable, like so many others, assigns to Jesus the position of King and Judge of the human race. It may, therefore, be fairly used to prove His Divinity.

GK got it wrong.
Reverend Alan wrote:
(2) The International Critical Commentary, 1902, Vol. 27, 5th edition, on page 443, notes.'St. Augustine more than once points to verse 27 in answer to the objection that the severe God of the OT cannot be identical with the God of Love in the NT. In the Gospels, as in the Law, the severity of God's judgments against willful disobedience is plainly taught....'
Read this. It's from the same commentary series. Again, a mistake that atheists commonly make.

https://archive.org/stream/criticalexegetic28...

One of the problems is that you're looking at older commentaries that are now obsolete. Let's check out some contemporary commentaries that use much better methods of textual criticism.

To be continued:

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711917 Apr 5, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism (Sanskrit: &#2344;&#2367;&#23 52;&#2368;&#2358;& #2381;&#2357;&#2352; &#2357;&#2366;&#23 42;, nir-&#299;&#347;vara-v &#257;da, lit. "statement of no Lord", "doctrine of godlessness") or disbelief in God or gods has been a historically propounded viewpoint in many of the orthodox and heterodox streams of Hindu philosophies.[1][2] Generally, atheism is valid in Hinduism, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[3]
Hinduism is a religion, but also a philosophy.[4] Klaus Klostermaier, a prominent scholar of Hinduism, says that Hinduism is more than myth, ritual, doctrine, as it affects other aspects of existence such as economics, politics, and law.[5] Among the various schools of Hindu philosophy, Mimamsa, and Samkhya while not rejecting Brahman, typically rejects a personal God, creator God, or a God with attributes. While Samkhya rejected the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God, Mimamsa argued that the Vedas could not have been authored by a deity.
Hindu atheists accept Hinduism more as a "way of life" than a religion. They are unlike other Hindus in their religious outlook, but they share the same cultural and moral value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hindu...
hahahah! Just like your 40,000+ divisions among cristers. Do you silly folks have that many different "one and only" deities too? Is there such a thing as a cathaholic baptist? Which one is right? Which one goes ta hell and which one goes ta heaven?
And you idiots talk about "hindu's"? Aaahahahah!
Your deity can't even straighten out it's own heretics!(which you are one) LOL!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#711918 Apr 5, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text> Lets go back a few days ok ;)
You got it wrong, face it. You know you used an online calculator and copy and pasted. You did not realize the symbols would change in the copy and paste mechanics and little things like &%$# showed up all over the place. The answer was 185.. Sorry, do the problem again..
I used three numbers and I did not go beyond 185 which also suggest I used THREE significant digits.. Sadly you fell into a trap. I knew how to do the problem. Again, my point was to prove that YOU people pretend to have all this knowledge and you don't. I actually didn't think you would answer it but rather one of the other posters. I even felt guilty because you seem nice. The work you supplied was copy and pasted and you know it. Please explain the degree sign over the K as well. You get those from COPY and PASTING dude. Fess up!!
The orginal post.. Post number 708751.. http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
“My question deals with Ideal Gas Law:
Calculate the absolute temperature at which 46.5 g of O2 has a pressure of 1,662 mmHg in a 10.07 L container”
Your answer Post 708815
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
I'll give it a shot, but I haven't done one of these in several decades
<quoted text> The work you supplied was copy and pasted and you know it. Please explain the all the asterix symbols.. You know, the ones that show up when you copy and paste solutions.. HAHAHA... The &# and the degree sign over the K as well. You get those from COPY and PASTING dude. Fess up! Lets not forget your immediate Repost after you say what you did... Post No 708816..http://www.topix.com/f orum/topstories/TOCO8TEGNA8I5J T63/p33588#c708816
<quoted text> The error..
For P, 760 mm Hg = 1 atm, so 1162 mm Hg = 1662 / 760 = 2.19 atm 1162 and 1662.( 2 DIFFERENT NUMBERS!) This would have thrown you off on the mole. 1.45 and you put 1.43..
I think you're insane.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#711919 Apr 5, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>I would, but you said I should not have access to children and I am taking you up on that concerning you :)
No Susie, I have not said any such thing.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711920 Apr 5, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>Did you read the WHOLE post, I am pretty sure if you had, you would have UNDERSTOOD the whole "Christian" word came AFTER the death and it is plainly written in my post. There was NO CROSS beforehand so how could it have "meaning" until AFTER he was killed?
Point was...the "text" you used was obviously adulterated and used to "create" a pseudo-scripture appearing to be in place earlier than it could actually have been in actuality.
Your inability to recognize such a simple subversion of reality is proof that you are hopelessly brainwashed to succumb to such obvious deception, and accept the lie as a reality, while at the very same time believing you are actually "intelligent".

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711921 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Good analogies.
You know your coffee pot is cracked, you have evidence of that. You don't know how it cracked though, you're speculating on how it happened. Plus, you don't know when it happened, that would also be speculation. Plus, you don't know if the crack started at the top or at the bottom, that is also speculation. The one and only fact that you have is that the glass is cracked, everything else is not a fact.
Try to remember that rhetoric when it comes to your deity.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711922 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.
Psalm 139:13
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
Exodus 23:7
Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
Psalm 127:3
Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.
Too bad your deity doesn't practice what it preaches(according to your book).
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#711923 Apr 5, 2014
EVOLVING IMAGINATIONS wrote:
Remember how something came from nothing, than lost something and became something better ?......... Me either.
So you cant prove god either ,,

Care to try again?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#711924 Apr 5, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I did like it very much! I left a reply so it gets posted again.
You might enjoy these to short video's"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =xMoPBDz5ycAXX Anarchy explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
I was hoping that RR would check them out as well, he spooks easily. LOL!
Thanks for the kind words and for the links, I'm about halfway through the first one - anarchy and the two islands. I'll watch them over about four intervals.

My wife and I retired and expatriated to Mexico almost five years ago. That solved a lot of my government problems. Very little of American news is relevant any more, so I pay very little attention to it any more, which is a big benefit. The news was so oppressive to hear, but I felt like I needed to keep up. Not any longer. Obamacare, for example,just doesn't matter from here.

And this government is small, poorly funded, technologically deprived, and as a result, nearly invisible to us except when we deal with immigration, getting our car nationalized, traffic police, and that's about it. There is no money or technology for invasive public surveillance or a "war on drugs," for example. There are few police, and they are so badly paid that they are very compliant for a small bribe. I like it real well.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711925 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly how does it cost you money?
Whatever the church doesn't pay it's share of within the community, the community at large has to absorb as individual parts of that whole. That's what.
Just a thought

Russell, KY

#711926 Apr 5, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Give us the one argument against evolution that you consider the most convincing. Bring it on.
Do you believe that mankind evolved from apes?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711927 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, I still need a new scope.
Try a non alcoholic generic mouthwash...folks might not stay away so long.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711929 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Like that kind of responsibility.
Cristianity says that's a sin....yet you say you are being responsible. OOPS! Ther goes yer "heaven vacation".
I do agree with you that your church is being very irresponsible in it's teaching and actions. More reason it should be hobbled more, or even banned.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#711930 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
True.
But none of them would be a mousetrap, because all five components are needed and all parts must function AS DESIGNED to be a mousetrap.
The eye is irreducibly complex. There's no evolutionary pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common ancestor.
This might surprise you, tears are also irreducibly complex.
Evolution or common descent cannot explain how the bacterial flagellum came to be. All of its components need to be there in order for it to work.
<quoted text>
What is this? It certainly isn't a rebuttal. My points were:
•The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.
•The eye is irreducibly complex.
•Tears are irreducibly complex.
•Evolution can't explain how the bacterial flagellum came to be.
Your response is "Behe's dumb, Wiki told me"
Whiskey
Tango
Foxtrot
Doc. Behe is the originator of irreducible complexity (He wrote the book).

All of Behe's assertions about irreducible complexity have been found wrong....what I have been saying all along.

Behe testified for the schools defense (the creationist/Intelligent design) side and he made a fool of himself.

My use of the Wiki quote was to show you what people other then myself thought of him and his work.

At the time that Behe wrote the book on IC he did not believe in evolution....now he does

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#711931 Apr 5, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever the church doesn't pay it's share of within the community, the community at large has to absorb as individual parts of that whole. That's what.
So how much does it cost you?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#711932 Apr 5, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Try a non alcoholic generic mouthwash...folks might not stay away so long.
I like it when they leave.....

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#711933 Apr 5, 2014
Black Thunder 42 wrote:

Cristianity says that's a sin....yet you say you are being responsible. OOPS! Ther goes yer "heaven vacation".
I do agree with you that your church is being very irresponsible in it's teaching and actions. More reason it should be hobbled more, or even banned.
Yes, I sinned. We all sin.

That doesn't mean I haven't been (or won't be) forgiven.

What church? I don't go to church.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#711934 Apr 5, 2014
Susie D wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't know you decided the fates of people. Self proclaimed caretaker? Well, it isn't up to you to decide what I must do... for one, you're an atheist.. for 2, refer back to 1.. You have no dog in this here fit boy..
He's just relating the teachings of the entity that is the central core of your beliefs....or don't you really follow your own religious beliefs?
You can't have it both ways, and call yourself a "real" believer.
Thank you for exposing that you are a pseudo-christian.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#711935 Apr 5, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I understand that. What blows me away is when archaeologists find five or six fossilized bones, then "reconstruct" the entire animal, tell you how it lived, when it live, what it ate, etc.
It's all speculation, that's my entire point on this topic. Well, except for the bones that we find, that is, everything else is speculation.
*palaeontologists, not archaeologists

Yeah, reconstructing an animal based on a few fossil fragments is speculation. So? How does that impact anything?

Let me give you another analogy. Let us say you are at a mechanic, having your car fixed. You see some massive wheel nuts. Now I ask you to speculate about the vehicle those wheel nuts are going on.

1) You know this is a car mechanic. It would be used on a roadgoing vehicle.
2) The size and weight of the wheel nuts ar way to big for a normal family car
3) The wheel nuts shows you that it is made to handle a lot of strain

You conclude that the vehicle these wheel nuts go on, is either a bus or a truck. Can you see how one little piece of evidence can be used in conjuction with some deduction, in order to make a guess at a much, much more complex system?

So, let us say you were wrong. You maybe guessed truck, it may have been a bus. Is this so bad?

Palaeontologists do the same. A tooth can tell us a lot. It does give an indication of the size of the animal, plus the kind of work the teeth did. Carnivores have vastly different teeth from herbivores. Carno teeth are made to cut, slash and stab. Herbie teeth are for grinding. If you find a 4cm tooth shaped like a blade, would you think this was the tooth of a herbivore? Or of a carnivore the size of T-Rex?

As an aside. Until the 1990's, the puny arms of the T-Rex has neve been found. But, T-Rex was always depicted with having very small arms ending in two fingers. Why?

Because T-Rex belonged to a family of therapods known as the tyrannosaurs. They had the same heavy head structure, same heavy bodies, same shaped jaw, same proportion ocular and nasal cavities, same shape teeth, same s-shaped neck. Albertosaurus and Daspletosaurus both had the signature two digit hand, so the palaeontologists theorised that T-Rex would have the same puny arms as the others.

Well, that was confirmed. Speculation? Maybe. But that is some damned accurate speculation.

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) 7 min Steve III 646,384
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 24 min It aint necessari... 48,235
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 43 min MUQ2 44,643
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 1 hr Brian_G 15
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Annaleigh 105,563
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 1 hr USA-1 38,746
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr Brian_G 445,695
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr spinosaurus baryonyx 618,559
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr bad bob 182,627
More from around the web