show me some evidence, evidence, and evidence

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
By some way that doesn't automatically prove that there is a god, possibly. 🙂

I disagee. That automatically proves that there is a God which is why I say that most intelligent position is one of agnosticism.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ok...without religion there to entice the weak, the belief in anything other than maybe a deist prime cause will not survive...and that may too be slain. Maybe in our lifetimes or a our kid's lifetimes, with each revelation that cuts through the redundant superstition of old..

I don't want to get into this discussion...but...I think modern science has proven my beliefs right.

lol i don't read your posts you're on my block & im migraine prone, & no time for trolls

- Super Marie 64

Nope Hitler used it with his followers.
His officers all marched with 'God mit Uns' on their belt.
"God on our side".

Plus any god by its mainstream definitions, arguably would have killed hitler in the thirties, before his "chosen people" were attacked...but he was mad and had syphilis, so Im not surprised he was also particularly susceptible to cultist thing.

Still look at where the Nazi eagle symbol came from.

Fools to your eyes only, im afraid.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
lol i don't read your posts you're on my block & im migraine prone, & no time for trolls

- Super Marie 64

I thought you ignored me since long. I suppose it's some kind of accomplishment to be ignored twice.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope Hitler used it with his followers.
His officers all marched with 'God mit Uns' on their belt.
"God on our side".

Plus any god by its mainstream definitions, arguably would have killed hitler in the thirties, before his "chosen people" were attacked...but he was mad and had syphilis, so Im not surprised he was also particularly susceptible to cultist thing.

Still look at where the Nazi eagle symbol came from.

Fools to your eyes only, im afraid.

The Swedish army believed they had God with them when they marched as well. That doesn't make their march or the cause religious. Only those in it. The same can be said about many, MANY wars.

Symbolics? The most prominent Nazi symbol is the cross, and it represent the sun. The sun is not a religious object, but one of "science". Does that make the Nazi propaganda of science?

Trust me. The more you involve yourself in these discussions, the more will agree with me. Because the bigger this discussion gets, the more will look into it. Everyone discussing you already know how big imbeciles you and 0mega are. The numbers will only go up.

Trust me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagee. That automatically proves that there is a God which is why I say that most intelligent position is one of agnosticism.

I don't want to get into this discussion...but...I think modern science has proven my beliefs right.

Anti-theism can arise from a disgust at the slavery implied in belief.
Are you saying that Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris are dumb?
They hold the same positions. (Only 98% sure there no god=Agnonstic Quality) yet opposed utterly to the power Religion had to mutiliate, kill, invade etc This really needs to be understood by the faithful.

There collective list of credentials alone would refute that dumb label if so..

On the science though,
Thats your opinion. Mines another.
Who do you believe Ptolomy, or Gallileo on Heliocentricity?

Cause people who claimed to be god's boys, who acted as middle men between humanity and "god", and claimed like usual to know his plans methods etc and looked like the fools they were once it was pointed out that we revolve around stars, not the other way round.
Ancient texts, and characters in them have zero effect on our universe.

"Prove otherwise" would be the point, anyhow.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]I thought you ignored me since long. I suppose it's some kind of accomplishment to be ignored twice.

The Swedish army believed they had God with them when they marched as well. That doesn't make their march or the cause religious. Only those in it. The same can be said about many, MANY wars.

Symbolics? The most prominent Nazi symbol is the cross, and it represent the sun. The sun is not a religious object, but one of "science". Does that make the Nazi propaganda of science?

Trust me. The more you involve yourself in these discussions, the more will agree with me. Because the bigger this discussion gets, the more will look into it. Everyone discussing you already know how big imbeciles you and 0mega are. The numbers will only go up.

Trust me. [/B]

Weeeeeell, I hate to post against something you've said, but, yeah..the Sun is definitely the most religious "symbol" for humans. It occurs the most in almost every culture in every time and was worshipped the most.

The last 100 years has really taken a crap on sun worship, though...

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]I thought you ignored me since long. I suppose it's some kind of accomplishment to be ignored twice.

The Swedish army believed they had God with them when they marched as well. That doesn't make their march or the cause religious. Only those in it. The same can be said about many, MANY wars.

Symbolics? The most prominent Nazi symbol is the cross, and it represent the sun. The sun is not a religious object, but one of "science". Does that make the Nazi propaganda of science?

Trust me. The more you involve yourself in these discussions, the more will agree with me. Because the bigger this discussion gets, the more will look into it. Everyone discussing you already know how big imbeciles you and 0mega are. The numbers will only go up.

Trust me. [/B]

You truly are the imbecile.
You lack the skills to be able to converse without flaming, by all evidence.

🙂 Ergo: Im correct.

Just as history is: And THAT is why youre ignoring it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Weeeeeell, I hate to post against something you've said, but, yeah..the Sun is definitely the most religious "symbol" for humans. It occurs the most in almost every culture in every time and was worshipped the most.

The last 100 years has really taken a crap on sun worship, though...

Hell even I worship the Sun.... 😛

Originally posted by dadudemon
Weeeeeell, I hate to post against something you've said, but, yeah..the Sun is definitely the most religious "symbol" for humans. It occurs the most in almost every culture in every time and was worshipped the most.

The last 100 years has really taken a crap on sun worship, though...

I know that it is viewed by many cultures as religious. I am not oblivious to this, which is a conclusion that Sadaki seem to have rapidly jumped to as well.

Hitler did not choose the symbol for its divine value. He chose it because the sun represent the center. He wanted a simple, yet potent symbol and he chose one that represent the most powerful object known to man.

People respect the sun, as they would the Nazi party.

And isn't god meant to be more powerful than Man AND the sun, having allegedly created it?

And you seriously cant see that and "God Mit Us", the relationship between Hitler and the Churches etc, has a religious connotation?

God is subjective. Sun is objective. He knew this, no matter his faith in God. All people can relate to the power of the sun. Not all can relate to the power of God.

I'll repeat myself once more: Just because you believe in God, does not mean everything you do is because of him.

In case you did not know, Germany was in the gutter. God was not a reason for the war. Their economical situation was the reason for the war. God simply gave the German people confidence. God was a force of good for the German people, not a reason for waging war.

Hitler did not use God as a reason to destroy the Jews. He used God to pull Germany out of the gutter. Pulling the German people out of the gutter and waging war were two seperate events.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Anti-theism can arise from a disgust at the slavery implied in belief.
Are you saying that Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris are dumb?

How is an asseration sentient and intelligent enough to be comparable to a human? The idea can be intelligent, but you cannot logically use that definition to apply as some sort of cognitive comparative against a sentient.

Don't you think that's silly?

Idea A is an intelligent idea.

Person 1, holds idea &, which contradicts Idea A.

Conclusion: Person 1 is automatically dumb.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
There collective list of credentials alone would refute that dumb label if so..

Incorrect premise has lead to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, we can get quite philosphical and say that the credentials themselves are not an indication of intelligence, merely an exposure to knowledge and an ability to produce that knowledge in an individualistic way in consort with their experiences.

We can go a step further than that and say that their "intelligent" is actually debatable, to begin with, on a relative scale. Where is this scale? Why is it arbitrary?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Who do you believe Ptolomy, or Gallileo on Heliocentricity?

Ptolomy was the proponent of geocentricity. Gallileo recanted his heliocentricity belief (under extreme pressure, of course...and I believe he continued to believe it).

"Who is Copernicus" is the correct answer.

Alex, "Astronomers" for 500, please.

😆

I need to edit this, though: I DO get your point.

However, all we have to do is put ourselves in another star-system OR use math to predict with 100% accuracy where a planet ould be based on the heliocentric model.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Cause people who claimed to be god's boys, who acted as middle men between humanity and "god", and claimed like usual to know his plans methods etc and looked like the fools they were once it was pointed out that we revolve around stars, not the other way round.
Ancient texts, and characters in them have zero effect on our universe.

"Prove otherwise" would be the point, anyhow.

Well...0 effect is actually wrong. Very very very very little effect COULD be right. lol!

Sun was seen as subjective too on a cloudy day.

Thats why Egyptians believed in Rah.

And other civilisations would shit themselves when Eclipses happened and would make sacrifices to ensure continuance in god's favour.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Sun was seen as subjective too on a cloudy day.

Thats why Egyptians believed in Rah.

And other civilisations would shit themselves when Eclipses happened and would make sacrifices to ensure continuance in god's favour.

We are talking about the 20th century! You are doing this on purpose, aren't you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
How is an asseration sentient and intelligent enough to be comparable to a human? The idea can be intelligent, but you cannot logically use that definition to apply as some sort of cognitive comparative against a sentient.

Don't you think that's silly?

Idea A is an intelligent idea.

Person 1, holds idea &, which contradicts Idea A.

Conclusion: Person 1 is automatically dumb.

Incorrect premise has lead to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, we can get quite philosphical and say that the credentials themselves are not an indication of intelligence, merely an exposure to knowledge and an ability to produce that knowledge in an individualistic way in consort with their experiences.

We can go a step further than that and say that their "intelligent" is actually debatable, to begin with, on a relative scale. Where is this scale? Why is it arbitrary?

Ptolomy was the proponent of geocentricity. Gallileo recanted his heliocentricity belief (under extreme pressure, of course...and I believe he continued to believe it).

"Who is Copernicus" is the correct answer.

Alex, "Astronomers" for 500, please.

😆

Well...0 effect is actually wrong. Very very very very little effect COULD be right. lol!

Conceded on the zero point. 🙂

But the churches giving heresy judgements and fighting so hard to retard our understanding and progress, and surpressing the discoveries was a bit of a clue though, that belief in god and "understanding" of his plan is subject to having to constantly evolve no?

(When Gods plan was meant to have been right, the first time.)

This was my point.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]We are talking about the 20th century! You are doing this on purpose, aren't you? [/B]

Yep. Thats what youre on about:

Im talking about the case of there being no proof of God's existance in the many many thousands of years that the concept had been thought about.

A long term perspective is necessary sometimes.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And isn't god meant to be more powerful than Man AND the sun, having allegedly created it?

I disagree: a man can build a machine that is more capable than he is at accomplishing a task or tasks.

I agree with your point, though.

You know...I'm rather retarded and I'll shutup: I'll stop doing that as I'm annoying myself.

😂

No man has ever done that from scratch.
Too many man hours. Too many years of discovery.
Too many years of making the various tools, gathering resources, testing theories, testing components eventually built from those resources, then the languages or programming had to be perfectly devised...

As Joe Rogan once said "If I leave you in the woods, with nothing but an axe, how long before you could send me an e-Mail?"

Mans best shot is working together: Something that religious divides had gone in the face of since the get go...as their leaders wanted to control all understanding of the universe based on absolutes since proven to be mostly untrue: We can take it on faith that the rest that they were on about was equally false.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yep. Thats what youre on about:

Im talking about the case of there being no proof of God's existance in the many many thousands of years that the concept had been thought about.

A long term perspective is necessary sometimes.

So you are being intentionally stupid? That gives me some hope back for humanity.

Hitler chose the symbol because the sun is objective in the 20th century. What people through history thought of it is irrelevant, because he did not base his choice on history or on what people used to believe about the sun.
He picked it because it was an absolute. Everyone believe in the sun! Science has proven it and religion is not denying it.

As for no proof having existed, you do not know this. We can't prove it, but that doesn't mean he hasn't proven himself in the past.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No man has ever done that from scratch

Hammer. Tie a rock to a stick and you get more force than your hand can produce. It's a historical and scientific fact. Look it up.

Exactly he appealed to what he thought would be playing to the unifying commonalities, as politicians do.... And another commonalty was faith back then he used that too, like they always do.

You've still not bought the proof of god you set out to be able to do, btw.

Continue with the flaming though. Its SO impressive. 🙄

As for the hammer statement you just made, that revelas that you arent thinking about the words you seen infront of you.

A hammer isnt a PC. OR complex computer.

In order to save yourself at this point, you have to prove that that man could put a stick together with a stone and make a complicated machine (in the isolation of the woods, with nothing, but his hammer then be smart enough to have working internet connection by the end of the day) building like a PC by himself, having to mine the metals, synthesise PCB material having to REALISE (Not learn) all the science in one lifetime, let alone a day.

Cant do it.

And praying for one won't help either.

Nope. Working with each for thousands of years, produced the knowledge that modern scientists and engineers now have.

It that knowledge and progress had to fight religious opposition most of the way.