Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything.

Pick whatever religion you like or none at all. God is part of mystical truth and mystical truth does not require proof.

Just make up your own like I did.

like they all did

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Just make up your own like I did.

If your religion was a really, really good religion, that adds great good to my life and the world, I would join it. The value of a religion is not set by who started it, but by those who follow it.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything. Others opinions really shouldn't matter. It's what you feel inside, but if I were you, I'd stay away from Religion as a whole and go with more spirituality....It's more personal, and doesn't infringe on others.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If your religion was a really, really good religion, that adds great good to my life and the world, I would join it. The value of a religion is not set by who started it, but by those who follow it.

Wise words.

the value of a religion is what to follow

Originally posted by finti
the value of a religion is what to follow

Not all religions, some or more spiritual and not regimented.

Originally posted by finti
the value of a religion is what to follow

Some religions don't set rules to follow, just values to enrich your life.

even the spiritual ones needs something to follow

Originally posted by finti
even the spiritual ones needs something to follow

Yes there is something to follow. Many people are week in the world, and need this, but in my religion, you can move beyond this crutch.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes there is something to follow. Many people are week in the world, and need this, but in my religion, you can move beyond this crutch. I believe spirituality is just the connection to what is...What ever it is around us......Ohhhh, don't make me go quantum again....

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick...

Why can't you pick it yourself?

then those values that enrich your life is what you follow

still you follow something even in your religion

What do you mean by proof?
What do you mean by God?

Originally posted by finti
then those values that enrich your life is what you follow

still you follow something even in your religion

Not following does not = leading.

Originally posted by Mindship
What do you mean by proof?
What do you mean by God? Are we gonna go through definitions again????

"Clarity is the lens of truth."

Originally posted by Mindship
"Clarity is the lens of truth."




No, no, truth is the lens of clarity.

No, no no......Clarity is what you get without "Rose colored" glasses...

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything.

How about you convince me why I should allow you the opportunity to learn about my faith and you prove to me God doesn't exist

I agree with that

Wow Shaky and finti agree????

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything.
Any religion that suits your spiritual needs and that you feel is right for you.

religion is a part of human culture there are many choose whatever one you like but don't expect it to have all the answers.

Go and walk in a forest, open your mind and look around you, see a sunset or a sunrise, go to the seaside and watch the sea roll in. Consider all the variety and beuty of life on this world.

Its a brilliant work of Art, there must be an artist behind it.

Or does anyone seriously think the diversity and accuracy of life, atmosphere, world tilt, distance from the sun, exact air content etc was an accident?

Originally posted by soleran30
How about you convince me why I should allow you the opportunity to learn about my faith and you prove to me God doesn't exist

i agree with that

PROOF? Never gonna happen. You will find out when you die though.....or not. (if there's no life after death, you will learn nothing when you die)

God is something that people must find by themselves. Someone cannot show God to others, so there is no way to prove it.

God is something that is not on the outside as much as it is in the inside to the observer. Then it is seen in all things.

a computer geek then

Where'd that come from???

We share the same essence as all. All of us.....Kinda cool when ya think about it......lol......

Whoooo, we're all touching each other...

more on the inside than outside

........You know that could be taken a totally different way..

" And now for something completely different"
Monty Python.....

"Prove to me that you're divine / Turn my water into wine..."

^ That's a very good rhyme.....I'm proud of you!

just piss in the water wine aint nothing but sour vinegar

I like wine.......

Bubbly is best when it bubbles up your chest!!

Originally posted by debbiejo
^ That's a very good rhyme.....I'm proud of you!

I kinna take the credit, lass. It's from (I think) "King of the Jews," which Herod sings in "Jesus Christ Superstar."

Originally posted by debbiejo
I like wine.......

Bubbly is best when it bubbles up your chest!!

I like chests...well, some, anyway.

naughty

Originally posted by soleran30
How about you convince me why I should allow you the opportunity to learn about my faith and you prove to me God doesn't exist ermm, their's no proof on it existing. It's just a lie.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Go and walk in a forest, open your mind and look around you, see a sunset or a sunrise, go to the seaside and watch the sea roll in. Consider all the variety and beuty of life on this world.

Its a brilliant work of Art, there must be an artist behind it.

Or does anyone seriously think the diversity and accuracy of life, atmosphere, world tilt, distance from the sun, exact air content etc was an accident? not an accident. More of a coincedence. But seeing all this beauty doesn't make me think it all happened by someone else. That's just ****ing crazy. It makes me think, if this can happen, anything can happen. Therefore, I can do anything. If your telling me that all this happening by chance defies probability, then you obviously didn't/don't pay attention in school. Even if the odds of this happening are 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999/1 their still a chance. If their's a chance, it can happen. Don't you understand that beauty is a matter of oppinion and a concept. It can't be made by a supreme ruler. That's stupid.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
God is something that people must find by themselves. Someone cannot show God to others, so there is no way to prove it. Then it doesn't exist. This is coming from a christian people. A religious person has told me I'm right, by trying to prove me wrong. Like all the other christians. Thanks mate.

Originally posted by Mindship
"Prove to me that you're divine / Turn my water into wine..." If I can't do it. How can Jesus do it? If he is the son of God and came back after being crucified, WHAT DID HE DO AFTER THAT? Or hasn't anyone found that out yet? After 2000 ****ing years. No-one saw him come back, so how can you believe it?

















conclusion: Everyone here has told me that religion can't be proven. So why is everyone trying to convert people? If you can't prove it to me, how can you prove it to someone who can't speak your language and has crap lives, thus making the "Your lives will be better if you are christian" phrase more believable? So, well done everyone, you've made me even more Atheist by posting all this crap. clap

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything.

Why are you going to an online forum to find out what your way of life is going to be?

Originally posted by Punker69
Why are you going to an online forum to find out what your way of life is going to be?


it makes more sense than going to a church or a mosque.

No, it doesn't. Why would you ask a bunch of people you dont even know how you should run your life? Go to a church or wherever you want and see where you feel God more. Find it for yourself. Dont ask a bunch of people online who for all you know could be a bunch of weirdos. Its stupid.

Originally posted by Punker69
No, it doesn't. Why would you ask a bunch of people you dont even know how you should run your life? Go to a church or wherever you want and see where you feel God more. Find it for yourself. Dont ask a bunch of people online who for all you know could be a bunch of weirdos. Its stupid.


lmao, the church only makes a dramatic atmosphere to show the presence of god. n btw, people online MIGHT be wierdos but people who go to church surely ARE wierdos. not to mention dum rednecks, stupid choir singers{gay}, homosexual child molesting priest, women who have no fashoin sense or know of the existance of their right, and bumbling midwashed idiots{who almost all of them are} who eat the BODY OF CHRIST{just a piece of crap resembling paper} and think that pouring water onbabies makes them pure. i mean PUHLEASE.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao, the church only makes a dramatic atmosphere to show the presence of god. n btw, people online MIGHT be wierdos but people who go to church surely ARE wierdos. not to mention dum rednecks, stupid choir singers{gay}, homosexual child molesting priest, women who have no fashoin sense or know of the existance of their right, and bumbling midwashed idiots{who almost all of them are} who eat the BODY OF CHRIST{just a piece of crap resembling paper} and think that pouring water onbabies makes them pure. i mean PUHLEASE.

I wasn't even talking about Christ I was talking about churches in general. Almost every religion has some sort of place where they meet and I say go there instead of in front of a computer screen. Go and see where you feel the most supernatural happening.

What kind of church did you got to btw? I know any dumb rednecks. child molesting preachers, and the choir is awesome. Also, most of the women who go to my church have a great fashion sense. Stop being stereotypical.

All an All, if your searching for religion then do it on your own. Dont go to an online forum do decide how your gonna live your life. Its just stupid. Use some common sense.

ive seen{and contributed to if i might be bold enough to say } more sense, wisdom, logic and intelligence on this forum than in just about nay relegious debate, or mosque, shurch, synagogue, temple or any other place of worship. and its probably cause people in relegious places only ORCHESTRATE stuff and try to take advantage of your probles, emotions etc and give u a whitewashed/manipulated picture of the specific relegoin pointing out all the good and avoiding all the bad depending on your mental state. there is no GOD present there, its just sumtimes, these people talk of hope and give u a shoulder to cry on and tell you overly nicely how you are now in the presence of god's embrace and will be saved and how everything will be ok. its all BULL

Xyz, I think this is the stupidest thread you have ever made.
You can't just let other people convince you to choose a religion. Originally posted by Punker69
I wasn't even talking about Christ I was talking about churches in general. Almost every religion has some sort of place where they meet and I say go there instead of in front of a computer screen. Go and see where you feel the most supernatural happening.

What kind of church did you got to btw? I know any dumb rednecks. child molesting preachers, and the choir is awesome. Also, most of the women who go to my church have a great fashion sense. Stop being stereotypical.

All an All, if your searching for religion then do it on your own. Dont go to an online forum do decide how your gonna live your life. Its just stupid. Use some common sense.

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
Xyz, I think this is the stupidest thread you have ever made.
You can't just let other people convince you to choose a religion.


Well you obviously could...if those people had any arguements.

Actually Xyz you never even convinced me to assist you in direction of religion not that I would have anyway. You made a comment that is as unsuportable as a bible raving fanatic who loves the lord.

You deny therfore you chose before any comments were made to act as though you had some prophetic message to deliver and enlighten...................which you didn't and just made yourself look lame.

It's ridiculous as he asking people to prove him something when he can't even accept people's beliefs anyway.
Originally posted by xyz revolution
I'm not. I'm trying to make a point that religion is made up and shouldn't be used to rule countries.

I hate those places.

Yes spirituality is good. I like it but that doesn't change the fact that religion is a LIE! I want to believe in religion being true, it seems to be interesting stories, but it's not true so why are people arguing about it being true? That's the point I'm trying to make.
As proved here "Religion is a lie"

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
It's ridiculous as he asking people to prove him something when he can't even accept people's beliefs anyway.

As proved here "Religion is a lie"

Well, if they would prove he'S (hopefully) agree though. Since they don't, and can't, he becomes an ignorant religion basher.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if they would prove he'S (hopefully) agree though. Since they don't, and can't, he becomes an ignorant religion basher.
Exactly

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
It's ridiculous as he asking people to prove him something when he can't even accept people's beliefs anyway.

As proved here


LOL he is talking out both ends..................ie " I want to believe religion is true." Bing there you go so believe in it however here we go both ends........"I like it but that doesn't change the fact religion is a LIE." Woops there yeah go talking out both ends..................anyway I don't care the only thing it proved is that he has a conflicting system of beliefs and is looking for justification and someone to tell him its ok feel good about your choice lol

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
Exactly

And he misspelled "there", which is pissing me off.

Originally posted by soleran30
LOL he is talking out both ends..................ie " I want to believe religion is true." Bing there you go so believe in it however here we go both ends........"I like it but that doesn't change the fact religion is a LIE." Woops there yeah go talking out both ends..................anyway I don't care the only thing it proved is that he has a conflicting system of beliefs and is looking for justification and someone to tell him its ok feel good about your choice lol

Well, to be fair, the other side (evolution, atheism) has some more arguements to support their side.

Originally posted by soleran30
LOL he is talking out both ends..................ie " I want to believe religion is true." Bing there you go so believe in it however here we go both ends........"I like it but that doesn't change the fact religion is a LIE." Woops there yeah go talking out both ends..................anyway I don't care the only thing it proved is that he has a conflicting system of beliefs and is looking for justification and someone to tell him its ok feel good about your choice lol
I don't think he truly wants to believe a religion is true. He made this thread with a very closed minded opinion on religion, and no one is going to be able to change him.

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
I don't think he truly wants to believe a religion is true. He made this thread with a very closed minded opinion on religion, and no one is going to be able to change him.

God himself could come down from heaven smack him in the head and tell him to change his mind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
God himself could come down from heaven smack him in the head and tell him to change his mind.
I don't think I can answer that with anything other than:

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
I don't think I can answer that with anything other than:

Why? God should do that with everyone and we could all be a happy christian society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why? God should do that with everyone and we could all be a happy christian society.
Ok, lets say God did "come down from heaven"
Some people would say it was a figment of their imagination or that it was a trick. Not everyone would be convinced.

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
Ok, lets say God did "come down from heaven"
Some people would say it was a figment of their imagination or that it was a trick. Not everyone would be convinced.

We could shoot them in the name of God.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We could shoot them in the name of God.
And what a God that would be

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
And what a God that would be

A Powerful one.

Why would you want to shoot me?.............I'm a nice god..

Originally posted by debbiejo
Why would you want to shoot me?.............I'm a nice god..

I'd shoot you right away without knowing there's a god.

Originally posted by soleran30
Actually Xyz you never even convinced me to assist you in direction of religion not that I would have anyway. You made a comment that is as unsuportable as a bible raving fanatic who loves the lord.

You deny therfore you chose before any comments were made to act as though you had some prophetic message to deliver and enlighten...................which you didn't and just made yourself look lame. no. I want to be proven wrong. Hasn't happened though.

Originally posted by _Sanctuary_
I don't think he truly wants to believe a religion is true. He made this thread with a very closed minded opinion on religion, and no one is going to be able to change him. Yes I do. It's an intersting story the bible. But all these people believe it's true when they can't even proove it. That's the point I'm makin.

Originally posted by Bardock42
God himself could come down from heaven smack him in the head and tell him to change his mind. Ermm, who is this God? You speak of. What did he do?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Go and walk in a forest, open your mind and look around you, see a sunset or a sunrise, go to the seaside and watch the sea roll in. Consider all the variety and beuty of life on this world.

Its a brilliant work of Art, there must be an artist behind it.

Or does anyone seriously think the diversity and accuracy of life, atmosphere, world tilt, distance from the sun, exact air content etc was an accident? what the **** does that prove? Don't you realise this is real. Not a painting or a game. Open up YOUR mind and realise where Earth is. Then we can have a conversation. k



SScience changes as we learn more and isn't just one answer that confuses people.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
no. I want to be proven wrong. Hasn't happened though.

Yes I do. It's an intersting story the bible. But all these people believe it's true when they can't even proove it. That's the point I'm makin.


I would like for you to prove that you are correct before I assume which faith it is that meets your needs......................religion is like burger king and you get it your way.................................

Originally posted by soleran30
I would like for you to prove that you are correct before I assume which faith it is that meets your needs......................religion is like burger king and you get it your way................................. ??? I don't know

still waiting guys.

If it hasn't been said yet....one word: stigmatists.

...well known fact that there have been some genuine stigmatists (not including those whose wounds are self-inflicted and/or psychosomatic) who wore the wounds of Christ. Christ is God's son. Therefor, there is a God.

But choosing a religion (that's best for you) is about another one word answer: faith. God (at least I think anyway) did not intend for you to see specific signs, magic tricks, or even miracles to get you to "hop on board". It's about believing, XYZ.

Just like almost anything in life, you need to prove it to yourself...NOT someone else prove it for you.

Originally posted by BobbyD
If it hasn't been said yet....one word: stigmatists.

...well known fact that there have been some genuine stigmatists (not including those whose wounds are self-inflicted and/or psychosomatic) who wore the wounds of Christ. Christ is God's son. Therefor, there is a God.

But choosing a religion (that's best for you) is about another one word answer: faith. God (at least I think anyway) did not intend for you to see specific signs, magic tricks, or even miracles to get you to "hop on board". It's about believing, XYZ.

Just like almost anything in life, you need to prove it to yourself...NOT someone else prove it for you. wait, I thought Jesus' father was Joseph the carpenter?

This ^^ is where there is a major difference among Christians. But again, all of whom simply believe in God.

Originally posted by BobbyD
This ^^ is where there is a major difference among Christians. But again, all of whom simply believe in God. What? No they don't. Weirdos who can't admit they're wrong and gullible believe in god. What about Hindus, they don't believe in god.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
What? No they don't. Weirdos who can't admit they're wrong and gullible believe in god. What about Hindus, they don't believe in god.

The Hindus believe in many gods.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Hindus believe in many gods. my point exactly. Atheists and Bhuddists and Hindus don't believe in one powerful god like the christians, jews, muslims and sihks. Muslims and sihks however do have a different name for him.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
my point exactly. Atheists and Bhuddists and Hindus don't believe in one powerful god like the christians, jews, muslims and sihks. Muslims and sihks however do have a different name for him.

I believe in God. What do you think of that?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe in God. What do you think of that? y

Originally posted by xyz revolution
y

?

It's the vowel that's sometimes not a vowel. It's the transgender letter of the alphabet.

Why? Then.

Originally posted by Wesker
It's the vowel that's sometimes not a vowel. It's the transgender letter of the alphabet. It's not a vowel. People say it is so every word has a vowel.

Actually, my grade school teachers always repeated the mantra "a,e,i,o,u and sometimes y". I doubt they were lying. And it IS a vowel in ancient Greek.

Originally posted by Wesker
Actually, my grade school teachers always repeated the mantra "a,e,i,o,u and sometimes y". I doubt they were lying. And it IS a vowel in ancient Greek. okay. I'll agree.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Why? Then.

It is a choice I made. No one can prove that God exists or not, so a leap of faith is required to believe there is a God or not. I feel it is better for me to believe in God rather than to disbelieve.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is a choice I made. No one can prove that God exists or not, so a leap of faith is required to believe there is a God or not. I feel it is better for me to believe in God rather than to disbelieve. why is it better? You said you're a bhuddist even though you, have sex and believe in god.

To believe in god is okay. To make someone believe in god is wrong.

You can't "make" anyone believe in God, really.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
why is it better? You said you're a bhuddist even though you, have sex and believe in god.

To believe in god is okay. To make someone believe in god is wrong.

I would never make anyone believe in God. Why do you insinuate that I do?

oops early christians

Christians in Africa are telling them how to live. That's just wrong.

Yeah, and an atheist telling someone how to believe is better?

Originally posted by Wesker
Yeah, and an atheist telling someone how to believe is better? atleast it makes sense and doesn't start wars. Name a war on atheism.

XYZ, if I may....I don't think ANYONE here is trying to push their religion onto you. You asked a simple question in your thread, and we've responded. You've disagree with some points, and that's fine. Now, it's come down to what wars have been started by atheists? Dude, relax. Ultimately, believe what you want, but don't friggin' try to start a holy war. Cripes.

Well religion is really a false concept that has lead to much suffering on small and large scales.........If one would do away with it all together and worry only about their connection to what is, then we would solve many problems..........AND Missionaries, our little soldiers, should just come on home.........It's only prolonging the war with postulations....and divisions on who get to dine at the table of Jesus, or who ever.

You need contruction workers to buildings don't you? You need an author to write the book of animals, plants etc don you? Those thing don just pop up don they? So how the hell the like of us, this world, universe just sprung up? This is to prove that God exist.

Now prove to me there is no God. Don tell you cun see him so you dun believe. Thats utter crap.

It's not Atheist that dun believe in God....It is God who dun believe in Atheist.

Originally posted by BobbyD
XYZ, if I may....I don't think ANYONE here is trying to push their religion onto you. You asked a simple question in your thread, and we've responded. You've disagree with some points, and that's fine. Now, it's come down to what wars have been started by atheists? Dude, relax. Ultimately, believe what you want, but don't friggin' try to start a holy war. Cripes. okay, but the point is, why do people wanna teach religion as science like in Georgia? That just pisses me off.

Originally posted by joesha28
You need contruction workers to buildings don't you? You need an author to write the book of animals, plants etc don you? Those thing don just pop up don they? So how the hell the like of us, this world, universe just sprung up? This is to prove that God exist.

No, it isn't. It's leaping to conclusions. You're going from a natural case of things being created and designed and attributing it to an unknown supernatural being that has all these amazing attributes that come from a single book over two thousand years old. This is an example of Mythos thinking, not Logos. Mythos says "We can't explain it, therefore we must conjure up some supernatural explanation for it.". Logos says "We can't explain it, therefore we will try to discover its nature according to and within nature. We will NOT proclaim that some supernatural being creates or maintains natural phenominon without sufficient proof."

Creation itself isn't proof of God. It's not. Just because things are complex and irreducibly so doesn't mean that they are created by an intelligent designer. Look at any major city: such places work like evolution. They develop as the need arises, and the parts come together to form an entity that, without any one part, wouldn't function the same or perhaps not at all. But could we be fooled into thinking that one intelligent supernatural designer made New York City? No way.



Take a logics and reasoning class. You do not ask the opposition to prove a negative. If you are asserting that God exists, you must prove up. Asking another party to prove a negative is a poor debating fallacy.



Rhetoric nonsense.

Originally posted by Wesker
No, it isn't. It's leaping to conclusions. You're going from a natural case of things being created and designed and attributing it to an unknown supernatural being that has all these amazing attributes that come from a single book over two thousand years old. This is an example of Mythos thinking, not Logos. Mythos says "We can't explain it, therefore we must conjure up some supernatural explanation for it.". Logos says "We can't explain it, therefore we will try to discover its nature according to and within nature. We will NOT proclaim that some supernatural being creates or maintains natural phenominon without sufficient proof."

Creation itself isn't proof of God. It's not. Just because things are complex and irreducibly so doesn't mean that they are created by an intelligent designer. Look at any major city: such places work like evolution. They develop as the need arises, and the parts come together to form an entity that, without any one part, wouldn't function the same or perhaps not at all. But could we be fooled into thinking that one intelligent supernatural designer made New York City? No way.



Take a logics and reasoning class. You do not ask the opposition to prove a negative. If you are asserting that God exists, you must prove up. Asking another party to prove a negative is a poor debating fallacy.



Rhetoric nonsense. why didn't you hyperlink the posts? And I agree with you.

Hyperlink them?

Originally posted by Wesker
Hyperlink them? Yeah so I know when they were posted so I can reply to them like with this one ^

I'm too damn lazy.

mee 2. And I agree on what you said to him. God exists. As if.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Go and walk in a forest, open your mind and look around you, see a sunset or a sunrise, go to the seaside and watch the sea roll in. Consider all the variety and beuty of life on this world.

Its a brilliant work of Art, there must be an artist behind it.

Or does anyone seriously think the diversity and accuracy of life, atmosphere, world tilt, distance from the sun, exact air content etc was an accident? Isn't that what Darwin did?

Originally posted by joesha28
You need contruction workers to buildings don't you? You need an author to write the book of animals, plants etc don you? Those thing don just pop up don they? So how the hell the like of us, this world, universe just sprung up? This is to prove that God exist. What the ****, no, it proves that things can develop over time and accomplish things by themselves. Meaning evolution is true. Yoou need to read a text book for ****'s sake. Don't you understand that this "God" thing was made up to try and avoid questions. That was the plan and there was just one problem,



It was bollucks.

Originally posted by joesha28
Now prove to me there is no God. Don tell you cun see him so you dun believe. Thats utter crap. Why, if there's no knowledge in it, and great big holes in the theory, no facts, no evidence, no truth, it's just made up, then ofcource it doesn't exist. Moron. Oh, I mean Mormon. Sorry, kinda forgot you can't spell properly.

Originally posted by joesha28
It's not Atheist that dun believe in God....It is God who dun believe in Atheist. WTF? Seriously, WTF is that you just said? A made up guy doesn't believe in person who doesn't believe in him? WTF are you talking about? That is truely, the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You are ****ing dumb man. If you actually read 'The origin of Species' you'd know what science is.

ok I think you need to go back to that prescriptive medication of yours now

Originally posted by finti
ok I think you need to go back to that prescriptive medication of yours now translation: See a psychiartrist.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
okay, but the point is, why do people wanna teach religion as science like in Georgia? That just pisses me off. You cant teach one thing without teaching the other

FOR EXAMPLE:

You teach WWII to german students, but only teach what was happening from one perspective (aka nazi perspective) they wont know what was really going on, just those damn jews

by teaching everything about the war, they would figure out what was going on

you cant just say ADAM AND EVE (period) you have to teach it all. Legally.

Originally posted by Revernd Maynard
You cant teach one thing without teaching the other

FOR EXAMPLE:

You teach WWII to german students, but only teach what was happening from one perspective (aka nazi perspective) they wont know what was really going on, just those damn jews

by teaching everything about the war, they would figure out what was going on

you cant just say ADAM AND EVE (period) you have to teach it all. Legally. uh huh. Yeah, I learnt WW1 n WW2 from Britain's perspective, not German perspective. But that doesn't mean that religion is BULLSHIT.

Originally posted by Wesker
No, it isn't. It's leaping to conclusions. You're going from a natural case of things being created and designed and attributing it to an unknown supernatural being that has all these amazing attributes that come from a single book over two thousand years old. This is an example of Mythos thinking, not Logos. Mythos says "We can't explain it, therefore we must conjure up some supernatural explanation for it.". Logos says "We can't explain it, therefore we will try to discover its nature according to and within nature. We will NOT proclaim that some supernatural being creates or maintains natural phenominon without sufficient proof."

The late Dr. Orr said: What we mean by proof of God's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from thr finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason,which is the ground of all. from morality in conscience to a moral Lawgiver and Judge.

Religion existed b4 argument; in fact it is the preciousness of religion that leads to the seeking for all possible confirmations of the reality of God.


Originally posted by Wesker
Creation itself isn't proof of God. It's not. Just because things are complex and irreducibly so doesn't mean that they are created by an intelligent designer. Look at any major city: such places work like evolution. They develop as the need arises, and the parts come together to form an entity that, without any one part, wouldn't function the same or perhaps not at all. But could we be fooled into thinking that one intelligent supernatural designer made New York City? No way.

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

They develop as the need arises, you say. Who develop it? Chemical reactions? Natural Selection? That's the case the government of that state has to wait for millions of year for a building to be build. I did not say one intelligent supernatural designer made a City. read my post right kid.

Originally posted by Wesker
Take a logics and reasoning class. You do not ask the opposition to prove a negative. If you are asserting that God exists, you must prove up. Asking another party to prove a negative is a poor debating fallacy.

Man everywhere believes in existence of a Supreme Being or beings to whom he is morally responsible and to whom propitations need to be made. The likes of you are the minority, asking us to prove the existence of God while you guys are the 1st who say God don't exist. So? Asking another party to prove is a poor debating fallacy. Your debating fallacy.

Originally posted by Wesker
Rhetoric nonsense.

It is impossible for a finite mind to comprehand a Supreme Being unless with His help alone. Rhetoric nonsense? For a a finite mind, it will be.

Originally posted by joesha28
The late Dr. Orr said: What we mean by proof of God's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from thr finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason,which is the ground of all. from morality in conscience to a moral Lawgiver and Judge.

And this has all the effect and proof of Tookie William's autobiography. Point?



What a bunch of bullshit. Dictatorships existed "b4" democracy; is a dictatorship suddenly more credible because it's older? Appeal to tradition: logical fallacy.



Nice copy and paste skills there, Slick.



Go read a book on evolution. I'm not going to parrot it for you if you're ignorant to the concept outside of copied definitions and laymen's knowledge.



Can you relate this to something and make it intelligible and relevant? Natural selection is a scientific theory that holds insofar as it is both falsifiable and holds true to evidence and observation.. Go look up the entirety of the scientific method, in case you slept through that in grade school. Creationism and ID don't follow scientific method or any method other than "It's too complex or mysterious; therefore God did it." It's called leaping to conclusions. Logical fallacy.



It's called an analogy, and if you had the reasoning power adequate enough to resolve this debate, you'd notice it's comparison value and relevance.



Real mature from someone who has no legible argument.



Appeal to majority. Logical fallacy.

Just because people all over believe in God does not make it so. If everyone on Manhatten was under the impression that their island was the only island on the east coast, would it be so? No. Belief does not constitute being or proof, even the belief of a majority.



I'm so glad you've been keeping up on my arguments. I've never once said that God doesn't exist. Or "don't exist". I've argued that God cannot fit the Judeo-Christian mindset of all powerful and all good because of the very idea is contradictory in a world with evil. I've argued that Creationism and ID are faulty explanations for the beginnings of things, and that science is more reliable.

And when debating you do not ask the opposition to prove a negative. Why?

"There is a small, intangible, silent, invisible, allpowerful but unintrusive midget standing on my shoulder. Disprove"

That's why. No one can disprove that. It's not falsifiable. And it is likely not even true.



Glad to know you know your stuff there. :moron smilie:



In other words, you're saying we cannot know God. Congrats. You've proven my entire point. We cannot know God, so that stuff in your precious Bible is human arrogance and likely made up by people with an agenda or not even of God at all. This means we cannot conclude that God exists or doesn't exist based on current information and evidence, and we cannot conclude that should God exist, he neccessarily created everything and therefore, evolution doesn't exist. When you have an argument structured, come back please.

QED.

Originally posted by joesha28
The late Dr. Orr said: What we mean by proof of God's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from thr finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason,which is the ground of all. from morality in conscience to a moral Lawgiver and Judge.

Religion existed b4 argument; in fact it is the preciousness of religion that leads to the seeking for all possible confirmations of the reality of God.




Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

They develop as the need arises, you say. Who develop it? Chemical reactions? Natural Selection? That's the case the government of that state has to wait for millions of year for a building to be build. I did not say one intelligent supernatural designer made a City. read my post right kid.



Man everywhere believes in existence of a Supreme Being or beings to whom he is morally responsible and to whom propitations need to be made. The likes of you are the minority, asking us to prove the existence of God while you guys are the 1st who say God don't exist. So? Asking another party to prove is a poor debating fallacy. Your debating fallacy.



It is impossible for a finite mind to comprehand a Supreme Being unless with His help alone. Rhetoric nonsense? For a a finite mind, it will be. How come you haven't said anything to me?

Originally posted by Wesker
Rhetoric nonsense. I think I know what he means. He is saying that God is true and that everyone is Christian/Jewish/Muslim. He's so stupid, he doesn't understand or even know what religion means. It doesn't mean 'fact'. God doesn't exist, we can explainthings as science. Instead of argueing against science and for religion, why don't you try and learn it for yourself, like SCIENTISTS do.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything.
If you are interested in seeking God, then you should seek him of your own accord. Pray. Do whatever you have to do. It is ultimately your soul.

Originally posted by Wesker
And this has all the effect and proof of Tookie William's autobiography. Point?



What a bunch of bullshit. Dictatorships existed "b4" democracy; is a dictatorship suddenly more credible because it's older? Appeal to tradition: logical fallacy.



Nice copy and paste skills there, Slick.



Go read a book on evolution. I'm not going to parrot it for you if you're ignorant to the concept outside of copied definitions and laymen's knowledge.



Can you relate this to something and make it intelligible and relevant? Natural selection is a scientific theory that holds insofar as it is both falsifiable and holds true to evidence and observation.. Go look up the entirety of the scientific method, in case you slept through that in grade school. Creationism and ID don't follow scientific method or any method other than "It's too complex or mysterious; therefore God did it." It's called leaping to conclusions. Logical fallacy.



It's called an analogy, and if you had the reasoning power adequate enough to resolve this debate, you'd notice it's comparison value and relevance.



Real mature from someone who has no legible argument.



Appeal to majority. Logical fallacy.

Just because people all over believe in God does not make it so. If everyone on Manhatten was under the impression that their island was the only island on the east coast, would it be so? No. Belief does not constitute being or proof, even the belief of a majority.



I'm so glad you've been keeping up on my arguments. I've never once said that God doesn't exist. Or "don't exist". I've argued that God cannot fit the Judeo-Christian mindset of all powerful and all good because of the very idea is contradictory in a world with evil. I've argued that Creationism and ID are faulty explanations for the beginnings of things, and that science is more reliable.

And when debating you do not ask the opposition to prove a negative. Why?

"There is a small, intangible, silent, invisible, allpowerful but unintrusive midget standing on my shoulder. Disprove"

That's why. No one can disprove that. It's not falsifiable. And it is likely not even true.



Glad to know you know your stuff there. :moron smilie:



In other words, you're saying we cannot know God. Congrats. You've proven my entire point. We cannot know God, so that stuff in your precious Bible is human arrogance and likely made up by people with an agenda or not even of God at all. This means we cannot conclude that God exists or doesn't exist based on current information and evidence, and we cannot conclude that should God exist, he neccessarily created everything and therefore, evolution doesn't exist. When you have an argument structured, come back please.

QED.

The Argument from Design: Teleological

A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer but also a designer; a watch is amde for a purpose, an evident structure. A thoughtful designing mind was at the back of the watch. So it is in the world that we live in. These "ends" in nature are not attributed to "natural selection" results which are produced without intelligence nor are they "the survival of the fittest". They are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will.

The Argument from Being: Ontological

Most Human has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From where did they get this idea? From finite and imperfect beings like us? Certainly not? No...this idea argues for the existence of an infinite and perfect Being: such a Being must exist and not a mere thought.

The Moral Argument: Anthropological

Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, therefore there must be a Creator who is intellectual and moral Being, a judge, a Lawgiver.Man has an emotional nature. Only a Being of goodness,power,love,wisdom and holinesscould satisfy such a nature.These things denotes an existence of a personal God.

Conscience of Man says: "do this" and "Don't do that".These things cun be self imposed.They imply of a moral Governer to whom we are responsible.Some things are right...some are wrong. They cannot be right because it pleases and wrong because it displeases.Where did mankind got the standard of right and wrong? Morality is Obligatory, not Optional. Who made it Obligatory? We must believe there is a God or believe the very root of our nature is a lie.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
I think I know what he means. He is saying that God is true and that everyone is Christian/Jewish/Muslim. He's so stupid, he doesn't understand or even know what religion means. It doesn't mean 'fact'. God doesn't exist, we can explainthings as science. Instead of argueing against science and for religion, why don't you try and learn it for yourself, like SCIENTISTS do.

I was talking abt the existence of God..i have not come to the topic who is God yet.

Originally posted by joesha28
The Argument from Design: Teleological

A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer but also a designer; a watch is amde for a purpose, an evident structure. A thoughtful designing mind was at the back of the watch. So it is in the world that we live in. These "ends" in nature are not attributed to "natural selection" results which are produced without intelligence nor are they "the survival of the fittest". They are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will.

Ah, the classic faulty analogy. This analogy improperly classifies the relationship of a watch and watchmaker to the world as it is and some supernatural divine allpowerful creator. We know of the watchmaker because we have empirical evidence of his or her existance. Likewise, we can see the watchmaker make watches. There is no such evidence for a supernatural creator, nor is there any evidence of things being created. The analogy is improper.

Also, here you mistake order for design. It is likely that there is a sense of order in nature, but this does not neccessitate that there is a designer. On a beach, all the large deposits of sand are at the bottom, with smaller grains above that and the very smallest on top. That's a sense of order in nature, but is it designed? No. Just because things operate at certain principles and they are complex in nature does not mean they are designed.

And last there is even a challenge to the idea of order and design, as set forth by Hume. He notes that human beings impose order on a lot of things they see as part of their natural way of thinking. For example, take an inkblot: what's there? Well, a person might see all sorts of things, depending on the shape. But does that mean that the inkblot is anything more than an inkblot? Would anyone be fooled into thinking the inkblot was designed by an intelligent creator?

Simply put, this is no case. You have an improper analogy and an inherent dislike of evolution. This does not prove your case, sorry to say. And the fact that it's parroted by every major creationist and IDer in history means I was more than expecting it from you.



Ridiculous. This is the old Descartes argument, only mucked up and modernised. I have the idea of a unicorn that has feet of fire, a crown of cold, a tongue of silver and a horn made of mithril. Does that now mean that unicorn exists? No. Pure belief and imagination do not neccessitate being, or this world would be overrun with fantasy creatures.



It is an unsupported and incorrect assumption that because human beings are capable of goodness, they must have acquired this goodness from God, therefore he exists. More mythos. Also, the very idea of morality could be argued to be a tool of society; where morality was borne out of a need for it in large groups of people trying to survive together. Because if there were only one human being, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too?



No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone.

I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest.

Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow.

So I fail to see why you think Mythos is the more convincing argument, unless you just don't want to see otherwise.

Originally posted by joesha28
The Argument from Design: Teleological

A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer but also a designer; a watch is amde for a purpose, an evident structure. A thoughtful designing mind was at the back of the watch. So it is in the world that we live in. These "ends" in nature are not attributed to "natural selection" results which are produced without intelligence nor are they "the survival of the fittest". They are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will. So this being is watching, creating, monitoring, and choosing? Don't you realise you're wrong.

Originally posted by joesha28
The Argument from Being: Ontological

Most Human has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From where did they get this idea? From finite and imperfect beings like us? Certainly not? No...this idea argues for the existence of an infinite and perfect Being: such a Being must exist and not a mere thought.
WTF? In English.


Originally posted by joesha28
The Moral Argument: Anthropological

Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, therefore there must be a Creator who is intellectual and moral Being, a judge, a Lawgiver.Man has an emotional nature. Only a Being of goodness,power,love,wisdom and holinesscould satisfy such a nature.These things denotes an existence of a personal God.So, emotions are by god. Not environment makes sense. Apart from the fact everyone thinks different. Or can't you see that?

Originally posted by joesha28
Conscience of Man says: "do this" and "Don't do that".These things cun be self imposed.They imply of a moral Governer to whom we are responsible.Some things are right...some are wrong. They cannot be right because it pleases and wrong because it displeases.Where did mankind got the standard of right and wrong? Morality is Obligatory, not Optional. Who made it Obligatory? We must believe there is a God or believe the very root of our nature is a lie. They got it from evolution and thought. Apes and other animals think aswell. There isn't a great big gap.


*******

Originally posted by xyz revolution
WTF? In English.

Descartes.

well well well Gepetto guess its time for Pinocchio then

There is no 'scientific' or true 'proof' that God exists. There is historical evidence in the Bible of people that did exist (like Jesus) who did do a lot of things that would support the thesis that God exists but it is up to you to whether you beleive it wasnt just made up or recorded poorly. Religion is about Faith- and Faith is sometimes beleiveing in the unexplainable. I only hope you make the right choice because it is one that effects your ultimate fate.

"Ah, the classic faulty analogy. This analogy improperly classifies the relationship of a watch and watchmaker to the world as it is and some supernatural divine allpowerful creator. We know of the watchmaker because we have empirical evidence of his or her existance. Likewise, we can see the watchmaker make watches. There is no such evidence for a supernatural creator, nor is there any evidence of things being created. The analogy is improper.

Also, here you mistake order for design. It is likely that there is a sense of order in nature, but this does not neccessitate that there is a designer. On a beach, all the large deposits of sand are at the bottom, with smaller grains above that and the very smallest on top. That's a sense of order in nature, but is it designed? No. Just because things operate at certain principles and they are complex in nature does not mean they are designed.

And last there is even a challenge to the idea of order and design, as set forth by Hume. He notes that human beings impose order on a lot of things they see as part of their natural way of thinking. For example, take an inkblot: what's there? Well, a person might see all sorts of things, depending on the shape. But does that mean that the inkblot is anything more than an inkblot? Would anyone be fooled into thinking the inkblot was designed by an intelligent creator?

Simply put, this is no case. You have an improper analogy and an inherent dislike of evolution. This does not prove your case, sorry to say. And the fact that it's parroted by every major creationist and IDer in history means I was more than expecting it from you."

This is Logic...Teologic. After all you pro-evolutionist all say that evolution is fact after lots of studies bla bla bla. Base on the the observation evolutionist concluded on evolution which could be non-existant b4 the start of time. Now that is jumping to conclusion even after a big bunch of study. No matter how hard man use science he can never know everything in the universe. Just because he cun see this cun see that does not mean such things dun exist that is so foolish of him. There is a milky way that leads to another galaxy...scientist has yet to explore that. Will that mean that you guys are gonna say that such thing are existant just because you have not seen it.

"Ridiculous. This is the old Descartes argument, only mucked up and modernised. I have the idea of a unicorn that has feet of fire, a crown of cold, a tongue of silver and a horn made of mithril. Does that now mean that unicorn exists? No. Pure belief and imagination do not neccessitate being, or this world would be overrun with fantasy creatures."

That's your imagination. But the 1st man could not have such thought of a Supreme being is such a person did not exist. That witnessing of such a person is the source of religion...mystic...fantastic imagination. But mind you i'm not saying all of that is right except there was a Source...the Supreme Being.

Think what you want. Its not me whos gunna pay for it. No one is really going to care anyways if you prove god doesnt exist with your poorly definded 'logic' so you might as well quit.

"It is an unsupported and incorrect assumption that because human beings are capable of goodness, they must have acquired this goodness from God, therefore he exists. More mythos. Also, the very idea of morality could be argued to be a tool of society; where morality was borne out of a need for it in large groups of people trying to survive together. Because if there were only one human being, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too?"

You are a very conclusive person, aren't you? So you are saying that morality was something that evolved in a Homo sapian? Did the Neanderthal man have it? The chims is the jungles are our coursins..o wow! Running around butt-naked!! Guess the thought of wearing clothes come with evolution! Wesker, why don you sent some clothing to your lookalike coursin of yours living in the jungle.

O yeah...the case of human cease to exist, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too? well that's where we come to afterlife.

You are a fool and you realize you gain nothing from this ranting. Even if you claim our evidence that God exists is false, what do you have as evidence to disprove he DOESNT exist. You cant prove that you know there ISNT a god watching and controlling all of everything without first beleiving he exists.

"It is an unsupported and incorrect assumption that because human beings are capable of goodness, they must have acquired this goodness from God..." ---Who said that? We make our own decisions, thats what makes you and me different. We aqquire to ourselves only what we learn but there is still one who must control it.

"Also, the very idea of morality could be argued to be a tool of society; where morality was borne out of a need for it in large groups of people trying to survive together. Because if there were only one human being, morality would cease to exist. Does this mean God disappears too?"
---If there was one human being left who says he wouldnt be a Christian? Morality is not religion- it is basis formed off of religion. God does not "die off" as soon as humanity does.

"No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone."

Part of it is right...a child jus left to it's own will be much like an animal. But that is the depth of sin. Man is conceived in sin. Sin corrupted his nature. But the thought that you comparing yourself with animals is highly astonishing. God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. Man is different from animal.

I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest.

Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow.

So I fail to see why you think Mythos is the more convincing argument, unless you just don't want to see otherwise."

who are you talking too?

dam. nvm. I feel like an idiot, you are responding in parts to that other guy.

"No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone."

Part of it is right...a child jus left to it's own will be much like an animal. But that is the depth of sin. Man is conceived in sin. Sin corrupted his nature. But the thought that you comparing yourself with animals is highly astonishing. God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. Man is different from animal.



"I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest."

Nice going in explaining Mythos and Logos. For your info God rested in the 7th day means He rested from the work of creating and not He took physical rest.



"Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow."


I see creation by Human...Human creates AI...therefore there must be a Creator of Intelligence like us Humans...logical thinking. So what if He can't be seen? An extraordinary Creation can't be created by a Ordinary Person.

First off, how do you expect me to take you seriously when you use "b4" instead of "before"? Is that laziness or just immaturity? I don't speak AOLese, thanks.

Secondly, " No matter how hard man use science he can never know everything in the universe." is called a Hasty Conclusion. You have no evidence or logic for such an assumption, but you proclaim it as a given. While it may or may not be the case that science will not reveal everything, your assertion that it can't lacks validity. Also, even if it were to cap off somewhere along the line, this does not invalidate what it discovers. The human eyes cannot see heat, but does this invalidate everything you see? No. Don't be silly. And science isn't 100% "what you see happening at current". Scientists make and research positions and theories on things based on how they are now, and how they are in current. The difference between those is like observing a burnt candle. You didn't see the candle burn, but you can infer that it was burnt from its current condition. Likewise, if you actually saw the candle burn, you could turn around and identify the previous candle as being burnt. But if you had never seen fire, or never seen a candle burn down, you could not properly identify the burnt candle for what it previously was, nor determine what caused it with any real degree of accuracy.


And I'm saying your reasoning is faulty, just as it was hundreds of years ago when Descartes bowed before the religious leaders of his day and presented the same argument. Just because humans have knowledge of ideas and things doesn't mean they neccessarily exist. Like I said, I can imagine or think of impossible things, such as omnipotence. But that doesn't mean the knowledge came from am omnipotent being. Likewise, the thought of the unicorn didn't come from the unicorn.



And you're a very dismissive person, aren't you? Firstly, "cousin". That's the proper English spelling. Learn it, love it. If you plan to insult me (Half-assedly, I might add) at least address my argument and try not to mispell "cousin" twice in the same sitting. And when you can disprove my points, please do. You've come to this battle of wits unarmed thus far.



I'm glad you and the other person in Lala-land up there mistook my sarcasm for a serious point and dismissed the actual point with more bullshit.



Your source? The Bible. Exactly why none of you can ever properly defend your claims. Logic and evidence can't substantiate your arguments, so you paraphrase scripture and ad lib self righteous, anthropocentric nonsense that comes from a book of old and very dubious origins.



So the word of God is open to interpretation of the Man? Interesting take. Alright. In the beginning, there was darkness. I guess the universe was populated by chimps with dark hair! Our "coursins"!



Yes, human creates AI. Good job. Or rather, human beings arrange for AI to exist with already existing natural materials and principles. Human beings actually "create" nothing in this world that is tangible, since it is all already here. An apple and a computer AI both exist in the natural world operating under natural principles, comprised of different combinations of naturally occuring objects. Humans create nothing. They rearrange. So your analogy that "Humans created AI, and it is intelligence; thus God created mankind's intelligence" is faulty. Also, AI does not exist or operate on the same level as human intelligence and is really very limited. Not comparable.
Also, the idea that "Creation" is "extraordinary" is ridiculous. Creation IS ordinary. It's all we know. That would be like saying my dog taking a crap is extraordinary, even though he does it every day. Ridiculous rhetoric.

So yeah, for the second time... QED.

Originally posted by joesha28
"No, this is wrong, wrong, wrong... Morality is not obligatory. In fact, the existance of children who do not inherently know morality, sociopaths, and the fact that animals do not adhere to morality supports this. And since these instances do exist, I suppose I could conclude hastily and mythologically as you do that God isn't there for everyone." animals are immoral because they aren't as evolved and developed like we are. We are an older species, moron. So how does this prove god? It proves EVOLUTION. Anyone who has a good sense of logic and isn't close-minded can see that. And god is a description of higher power that makes things happen. AKA, the government.

Originally posted by joesha28
Part of it is right...a child jus left to it's own will be much like an animal. But that is the depth of sin. Man is conceived in sin. Sin corrupted his nature. But the thought that you comparing yourself with animals is highly astonishing. God created man good, and after Originally posted by joesha28
his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. Man is different from animal. man is animal. Childeren left on their own can't behave because they don't know how. They haven't been TAUGHT, and GROWN-UP in the proper ENVIRONMENT. To say they are sinners just shows how stupid you are.



Originally posted by joesha28
"I think you fail to understand the basic and yet drastic difference between Mythos and Logos. Mythos is as the name implies, finding extravagant, spectacular, and supernatural explanations for everyday natural things. The Norsemen believed that earthquakes were caused by a snake dripping venom into the face of Loki, the Egyptians believed that their leader was of the gods himself, the Greeks thought that earth and the cosmos were personalities who bore children that were the titans and gods... etc. In all these cases, none of the claims are truly falsifiable; or if they are proven to be wrong, it is by science and Logos. Another example of Mythos is that God created the world in six days and then needed to rest." So your saying god is mythology, not science. I thought you were trying to prove yourself right.

Originally posted by joesha28
Nice going in explaining Mythos and Logos. For your info God rested in the 7th day means He rested from the work of creating and not He took physical rest. So what your saying is, he's gonna start creating again. Are you that ****ing stupid you're making predictions from the bible?



Originally posted by joesha28
"Logos is based on reason and rational thought. It was philosophy that started the seeking of scientific method. Logos looks for natural, ordinary and observable meanings for natural, ordinary and everyday events (Or even out of the ordinary ones). Examples of logos include finding out that the planets revolve around the sun, that the tides are caused by the gravity of the moon, physics, biology, plate tectonics, medical science, the computer you're using... everything that's applicable and useable by humans follows logos somehow."


Originally posted by joesha28
I see creation by Human...Human creates AI...therefore there must be a Creator of Intelligence like us Humans...logical thinking. So what if He can't be seen? An extraordinary Creation can't be created by a Ordinary Person. no, it was created by many things. We all benefit and create our young. WE are the creators. Not god. I mean, how the **** can you prove god, by pointing out the unexplained, and explaining it by one easy answer. That's just crazy.

Originally posted by xyz revolution
animals are immoral because they aren't as evolved and developed like we are. We are an older species, moron. So how does this prove god? It proves EVOLUTION. Anyone who has a good sense of logic and isn't close-minded can see that. And god is a description of higher power that makes things happen. AKA, the government.

^That's what you said.

Here's what I said that joesha improperly quoted:



Firstly, your assertion that animals are immoral because of their stage of evolution begs for proof. Secondly, we are not an "older species", moron. And God is not another name for "the government". When you learn how to reason and debate like a man, come take another stab at this. But for the time being, you're just a pig-headed self-righteous bastard not unlike the Christians you attack.



^Again, what you said.

Here's what I said that again, joesha misquoted and you probably took for fact and attacked improperly.



See? Scroll up. That was me, Quicksilver. I was showing Joesha the Ignoramus the basic concepts behind philosophy and reason. You were speed reading and apparently just out to prove your thoughts on everyone else, thus making you hypocritical every single time you bash a Christian for being... a Christian. Now piss off; you give the rest of us a bad name.

I read your post Wesker...nice catch on the spelling, good job.

You see everyone believe in something. Atheist cannot prove there is no God. Faith itself is unavoidable, even if you choose to believe in yourself.

The scientific method is limited to that is measurable and repeatable. By definition, it cannot speak to issues of ultimate origin, meaning/purpose of life or morality. Science by itself offer moral guidance or values to govern our lives. All science can do is show us natural law works, while telling us nothing of it's origins.

The theory of evolution of life will not make God unnecessary. Even you assume that someday scientists will find missing links to confirm that life appeared and developed gradually over long periods of time, the laws of probability would still show the need of a Creator. The Universe is complex and immense, it did not just happen. Many Evolutionist Scientists are compelled to acknowledge the possibility or even likelihood of an intelligent Designer.

Israel's Exodus from Egypt and those miracles has been witness by million of Jews and Egyptians. The God of the Christian Bible rest His case on events witness in real time and locations. It you really doubt those claims..you could visit those places to check out the evidence for yourself.

The country Israel's future was pre-written...Moses and the other prophets of the bible predicted Israel's unparalleled sufferings and dispersion throughout the world. I believe you are in touch with the current affairs.

There are very few atheist...who seriously thought about life and concluded that there is no God. There are more agnostics, thinking people who say "I don't know if there is a God". "Have you seen God? Have you felt God? Than how do you know there is a God?" are your questions. It's like asking "Have you seen your brains? Have you felt your brains? Than how do you know there is a brains?". You'll probably go "Bullshit Joesha!! Science has shown that man has brains". True i would say, but it took someone else to show a Man his own brains. We are talking the Most Powerful Being in this Universe. It takes only Himself to reveal Himself.

Another thing Wesker, i'm not taking this as a battle of our wits. But rather a battle of your soul and those you are reading our debate(those on your side at least). You don know the real me...neither do i know the real you. But on the day of Judgement we will know each other and than i pray that we would enter the Kingdom of Heaven together.

I know you would say "Bullshit" but i would say Amen....

oh really, so you base this conclusion up on what?

Christian being self-righteous? Being Self-righteous is a sin. God took a dip on Job for that. Even Christians have to remember that. Christianity is what a man can do for God (Man can never please God). But What God did for Man (a difference between Christianity and other religion).

I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life,and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

This what a Christians' only comfort in Life and Death. A Man can never keep the Law of God. We are prone by nature to hate God. But God created man good, and after his own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. Only by being regenerated by the Spirit of God, we can do good and not inclined to all wickedness. Basically we Christians are justified sinners...saints but only through Christ.

Christians themselves sad to say have to get themselves some christian education. Read your heidelberg/westminister catechism. learn your Apostles' Creed and Lord's prayer. Don't take Christ given liberty for granted guys. Understand your Guilt...learn about the Grace....show your Gratitude.

Originally posted by finti
oh really, so you base this conclusion up on what?

The knowledge of God almost everywhere. It's innate. So Atheist are people saying there is no God. So seriously they were thinking of it.

knowledge of someone believing in a god and knowledge of god is two totally different things.
And the thinking atheist do is to deciedie that to them there is no god.
Atheist doesnt mean that they havent thought of the idea of a god cause to deciede that there is none they obviously have thought about the idea, only they dont buy it.
Atheist simply say there is no god meaning they have taken a stand on the issue, agnostics on the other hand havent taken that stand.

Its as simple as if you think whether the Cubs gonna win the world series or not, those who say yes believe they will (believers/faithful) those who say maybe but they dont know (agnostics) and those who say no they wont(atheist).
All of them thought about it but came up with different stands on the matter.
And that is the key issue here, to take a stand you have to have thought about the matter if not you are just a copy cat tag along sorry assed dork

Originally posted by joesha28
I read your post Wesker...nice catch on the spelling, good job.

I wasn't looking for it so much as it was glaringly obvious.



I've never tried to prove atheisism. And faith is not "unavoidable" any more than choosing to buy a red car is "unavoidable". Don't deal in absolutes unless you have excellent reasoning behind it. From what I see, you don't. Throwing out statements like "faith is unavoidable" doesn't make it so. And it certainly doesn't sway the opposition.



Indeed, and science doesn't proclaim to have, 100 per cent, the absolute origin of creation. Religion does. However, while science may not be able to explain that phenominon with current technology, there is the possiblity that more conclusive evidence can be found in the future. It may not happen at all, sure, but that doesn't mean it can't ever happen, period. Improbable and impossible aren't the same thing. Likewise, the point of the debate is that religion claims things to be true without providing the logos for it, or even evidence. It just says so and you have to believe. The idea of religion and faith is because of lack of proof and evidence. Having faith itself is not knowing the real answer.

However, I fail to see why you as a religious advocate feel the need to piss and moan at science. Scientific advances create the modern marvels you use. Faith apparently creates a false sense of security, narrow-mindedness towards other views, and religious tension and wars from the most part, but that's really undercutting the good points faith offers. Yet when I do battle with you religious advocates, you all come out of the gate swinging at scientific principles which... ahem... help explain and develop the computer you're using!

Really, I don't trust anyone who feels they have to validate their faith on an online forum; that shows a serious insecurity right there, and a need to impress one's views on another. Faith and beliefs are subjective and relative; they differ slightly or radically from one person to the next. If you were truly secure in your faith, you wouldn't feel the need to engage in this debate and if you truly were a disciple of Christ's teachings, you wouldn't have stooped to petty insults and questioned my lack of faith.



But that doesn't make the Judeo-Christian God neccessarily true either. What's your point? Evolution doesn't exclude God from existing; rather, it tries to find a natural explanation for something without leaping to the supernatural divine all mighty intanggible unknowable creator. Evolution might be wrong. It might be right and there still be a God. Either way, scientists are not proclaiming theirs to be ultimate truth. Religious groups do. Therein is the difference. Realize that already.



No, it's an unsubstantied assumption that the universe NEEDS a creator.



More religious dealing in absolutes without a shred of proof. You do realize that just because you say it with conviction, it isn't neccessarily so, right? New York City is so complex, it would take more than a warehouse of supercomputers and then some to fully render the city in 3D. That's not counting adding other properties to the elements within the city, or adding weather, etc. Yet would anyone be fooled into thinking New York City has one intelligent creator? No. That's ridiculous. The idea of irreducibly complex doesn't pan out.



No, they're not. Evolution is the idea of life developing WITHOUT such a designer. This makes about as much sense as claiming Newton is compelled to acknowledge the idea that gravity doesn't exist on earth.



According to what? The Bible? One source? Please. Provide outside sources of this Exodus, and provide the credibility of all the sources. The Bible is getting a bit old as the one-stop shop for all your answers.



No, you should show me the evidence. You're making the assertion here, not me. You took the religious stance. Prove up.



Wow, predicting conflict in the Middle East? Those prophets powers are mighty! Please. And if Israel's future is pre-written, this excludes the idea of free will, and thus all that happens in the world is God's will. Therefore, God is not all good, and Christianity is self contradictory AGAIN.



Can you prove this, or did you pull this out of your ass?



Yeah, I'm sure God showed us brains, man. I'm really sure. It wasn't early civilizations experimenting with proto-medical treatments; it had to be God. Hey, I'm sure science is all about what we can see and feel and uses absolutely NO inferences, huh? You would know, with your incredible grasp of science.



While I appreciate your late hour brotherly love appeal, the point is you've come to me with a difference in ideas. I've made points that you've failed to address, even though it weakens your position to ignore them. I've pointed out rational arguments, empirical problems, and inference methods... Hell, I've broken down your stance with a definition. You come back at me with religious doublespeak. That's just sad. You're not in touch with this discussion at all, and I might as well be speaking to a bot on AIM. If heaven's filled to the brim with people like that, I don't want to go. The unexamined life isn't worth living, and yours is apparently unexamined.

saying god exists shows how stupid you are. Maybe god does exist, maybe he's not an easy answer for everything. Does it matter?

Could you show a minimum of respect xyz revolution...

Originally posted by Storm
Could you show a minimum of respect xyz revolution... okay. I don't want to get banned. I'll have a more respectful view now.

so, anymore proof

I've always been baffled by the incessant and completely uninspired rants that surge up when the question of believing in God comes around. Normally I'd say, what more proof do you need exactly being in the dire, mortal, very much limited packages that we are bound in?

But upon reading Cervantes, his idea about faith and truth has taken the words out of my mouth so eloquently.


Sir Knight, he said "we do not know who this beauteous lady is of whom you speak. Show her to us,and if she is as beautiful as you say, then we will right willingly and without any compulsion confess the truth as you have asked of us."

"If I were to show her to you," replied Don Quixote, "what merit would there be in confessing a truth so self-evident? The important thing is for you, without seeing her, to believe, confess, affirm, swear, and defend that truth."

Don Quixiote ,Miguel De Cervantes.

And was there a beauteous lady?

Originally posted by Gregory
And was there a beauteous lady?

No. Don Quixote was insane. and Dulcinea del Toboso was merely a figment of his imagination, his ladylove that inspired him to keep on going and take part in the deeds with the noblest of his intentions.