Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Plus, my assuptions are not what people think, but what people would be thinking if they thought as hard as I have about this sort of thing. what is holding me back is the countries rules, and my rules. What is holding you back is the countries rules.
No, what is holding you back is your countries rules and your gods rules...what is holding us back is our countries rules and our set of morals we decided to be the ones we want to stick too......
Physical tangible evidence, that being said, do you have any proof that he doesn't exist?
despite the fact that no negative can be proven based on the requirements for the very term "evidence"........only seeminly contradictive positives can be proven.............that sentence is rather poorly thought out. It starts off talking of physical, tangible evidence.........then asks for such to prove god does not exist. If god does not exist, how can he/she/it provide physical, tangible evidence to prove he/she/it does not exist.
That's like saying, " I know ____ doesn't exist......because all this evidence it left behind points to it not existing." If it doesn't exist, it can't leave evidence behind now can it.
I am NOT going to post after this.
damn it. keep your word.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
🤨 Holy crap? Are you reading and taking the flawed logic seriously? No wonder it's impossible to get anywhere with you.
Cats and dogs look the same? 🤨 Are you myopic?
From where do you derive that I would actually believe Felis silvestris catus and Canis lupus familiaris are one and the same. The families Canidae and Felidae diverged tens of millions of years ago.
Cat = dog was meant to [b]highlight how spurious your reasoning is.
Your assumptions are assumptions. Period.
Again it's incredibly patronizing for a teenage boy to say that 1) he believes he thinks about things more than everybody else, and 2) because he believes he thinks about things more than anybody else he presumes to know their state of mind better than they themselves do.I'll say this for the last time - Christianity does not hold a monopoly over morals and ethics. You may rely solely on god to provide you with a sense of morality, but I do not. I have my own personal intrinsic sense of morality, and my own personal ethics, developed completely independently from your institutionalised religion. Life not being instigated by a deliberate intention does not mean that people cannot have purpose in life. [/B]
"I'll say this for the last time - Christianity does not hold a monopoly over morals and ethics. You may rely solely on god to provide you with a sense of morality, but I do not. I have my own personal intrinsic sense of morality, and my own personal ethics, developed completely independently from your institutionalised religion. Life not being instigated by a deliberate intention does not mean that people cannot have purpose in life."
Christianity does not hold a monopoly over morals and ethics. You may have this "intristic sense of morality" yet if you were brought up by some mass murderers than it would be much different.
You have conrol over your own morale and ethics, yet Christianity wants everyone to be good, and god supports it.
If we don't have a reason to be here, we don't have to be here, and if we don't have to be here then it wouldn't matter if anyone else but ourselves dissappeared/died because they don't have to be here either.
"Cats and dogs look the same?"
Compare the likenesses between a cat and a dog to the likenesses between man and ape.
Changes to turn a cat into a dog:
Mouth/nose comes out more/skull shape
Tail wags
A bit bigger(Usually)
Things alike between a Cat and Dog:
Fur
Skeleton/Four Legs(except skull)
Tail
Same position
Changes From Human to Ape:
Fur
Mouth/nose comes out more/skull shape
Walking position
Less Intelligence
Better at climbing
And many more of which i have forgotten.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Christianity does not hold a monopoly over morals and ethics. You may have this "intristic sense of morality" yet if you were brought up by some mass murderers than it would be much different.
You have conrol over your own morale and ethics, yet Christianity wants everyone to be good, and god supports it.
Christianity, in my experience, only wants you to forfeit freedom of thought and submit to it's own views. With you it becomes more and more obvious they've succeeded.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
If we don't have a reason to be here, we don't have to be here, and if we don't have to be here then it wouldn't matter if anyone else but ourselves dissappeared/died because they don't have to be here either.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Compare the likenesses between a cat and a dog to the likenesses between man and ape.
Changes to turn a cat into a dog:
Mouth/nose comes out more/skull shape
Tail wags
A bit bigger(Usually)
Things alike between a Cat and Dog:
Fur
Skeleton/Four Legs(except skull)
Tail
Same position
Changes From Human to Ape:
Fur
Mouth/nose comes out more/skull shape
Walking position
Less Intelligence
Better at climbing
And many more of which i have forgotten.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey Chibi if I can give you a good advise, don't put stuff from these conversations to your sig..makes you look rather foolish...and evolution doesn't agree to the Cat = Dog thingy......
Yes, evolution does agree, all living things are just the same, they just look different according to where they live and how they live, that's evolution.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Lack of deliberate intent in the instigation of life does not automatically negate individual purpose in life. God may be the only thing that gives your life meaning, however he is not what gives mine meaning.It really is better to remain silent and be thought the fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. If you don't know anything about comparative animal biology, which it appears you do not, then don't try and use it as an argument.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No doubt I'd be a different person to an extent if I was raised by mass murderers, or raised by Christians, or raised by mass murderer Christians. I don't see what your trying to prove. As you seem to derive your morals solely from Christianity, does that mean if you had been raised by different people and never introduced to the religion that you'd be an amoral, unethical murderer.Christianity, in my experience, only wants you to forfeit freedom of thought and submit to it's own views. With you it becomes more and more obvious they've succeeded.
Let me put it simply, live and learn, if someone believes in something doesn't make it non-existant, one day what this person says could be proven right. Hang on to "What if?"
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Evolution is claiming that all life is the same, just looking different depending on where they live and how.
No!
Don't know were you got that idea. The only thing that evolution says is, animals adapt to their surroundings and this gradual change, over long periods of time, lead to significant change.
Here is a web sign that will help you understand. I suggest you read all you can. Just because you read something does not mean you have to believe in it. If you wish to convince others that evolution is wrong, you have to know evolution inside and out.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
despite the fact that no negative can be proven based on the requirements for the very term "evidence"........only seeminly contradictive positives can be proven.............that sentence is rather poorly thought out. It starts off talking of physical, tangible evidence.........then asks for such to prove god does not exist. If god does not exist, how can he/she/it provide physical, tangible evidence to prove he/she/it does not exist.That's like saying, " I know ____ doesn't exist......because all this evidence it left behind points to it not existing." If it doesn't exist, it can't leave evidence behind now can it.
damn it. keep your word.
That sentence was poorly written, he said there's no proof, I said not tangible for his liking.
I should have asked the different question seperately though.
Originally posted by CorderaMitchell
so you're proving something that cannot be proven, than why ask of proof.contradiction.
If a phenomena exists, it can be observed and quantified. These observations and quantifications can then be used to substantiate the positive claim that a phenomena exists.
If a phenomena does not exist, it cannot be observed or quantified. The negative claim that a phenomena does not exist cannot be substantiated because there can be no evidence of non-existence.
There is no contradiction. I am asking you to substantiate a positive claim, e.g. God exists, which is possible. You are asking me to substantiate a negative claim, e.g. God does not exist, which is impossible.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If a phenomena exists, it can be observed and quantified. These observations and quantifications can then be used to substantiate the positive claim that a phenomena exists.If a phenomena does not exist, it cannot be observed or quantified. The negative claim that a phenomena does not exist cannot be substantiated because there can be no evidence of non-existence.
There is no contradiction. I am asking you to substantiate a positive claim, e.g. God exists, which is possible. You are asking me to substantiate a negative claim, e.g. God does not exist, which is impossible.
When it is observed, remember the whole thing about technology?
Anyway, I'm not saying you are wrong or right, I'm actually thinking this is philosophy...
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
You could just say that all the life on earth is the same thing just adapting to different environments, because that is what the creature does.