Originally posted by Super Marie 64
[b]Again with rejecting a case made, through weak questioning of position. Can't you bring anything useful to the table?You can not prove Julius Caesar. Period.
You cling to a blanket right now. Your position of security. Science. Quit the hypocritic bullshit and start making a case for yourselves. You look like idiots, so I suggest you pick up the pace or you will continue doing so.
So did I, with you replying to me. See my point? I did not actually bring anything to the table with that reply of mine, yet there's a discussion going on right now, right here. You telling me you forwarded an argument.
You do not have to contribute anything (Which you haven't) in order to justly claim you forward something. [/B]
Again religion is the biggest most frequently clung to blanket in the world.
And it attempts to smother Scientific understanding of the universe at every turn.
Its not the least bit shameful to throw down with science, as its in reality.
Whereas blind 'belief' in fairy tales and angrily ignoring the multitudes of evidence to the contrary evidence submitted is laughable in the tragicomedy sense..
I cited examples of things attributed to god by the people who knew god, spoke for him as being that have been revealed to be nothing but solipsistic nonsense and superstition.
Thats nothing even remotely like "Not contributing".
Thanks for playing. 🙂
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
what is so damn extraordinary that makes you doubt his existence? seriouslyyou comparing god to caesar lol
No. I compare the act of proving one entity to another.
You reference to documentations to prove Julius Ceasar. That is how you prove him. At the same time, you believe that the Bible and other religious texts are not telling the truth.
You use the same type of source to prove Julius Caesar, a source that you reject in a discussion about God. That, my friend, is flawed logic. I assume you looked the meaning of those two words up by now. It's hypocritical.
I do not doubt Caesar. I believe in Caesar. I just can not prove him. No one in this world can prove him. By your logic, that means he did not exist. Because he can not be proven.
Originally posted by Super Marie 64man wtf are you on about? you believe in caesar but cant prove him?
[b]No. I compare the act of proving one entity to another.You reference to documentations to prove Julius Ceasar. That is how you prove him. At the same time, you believe that the Bible and other religious texts are not telling the truth.
You use the same type of source to prove Julius Caesar, a source that you reject in a discussion about God. That, my friend, is flawed logic. I assume you looked the meaning of those two words up by now. It's hypocritical.
I do not doubt Caesar. I believe in Caesar. I just can not prove him. No one in this world can prove him. By your logic, that means he did not exist. Because he can not be proven.
[/B]
the guy is in different documentations, on coins, statues, people telling how they murdered him... WTF makes you doubt his existence?
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Again religion is the biggest most frequently clung to blanket in the world.And it attempts to smother Scientific understanding of the universe at every turn.
Its not the least bit shameful to throw down with science, as its in reality.
Whereas blind 'belief' in fairy tales and angrily ignoring the evidence submitted is laughable.
I cited examples of things attributed to god by the people who knew god, spoke for him as being that have been revealed to be nothing but solipsistic nonsense and superstition.
Thats nothing "Not contributing".
Thanks for playing. 🙂
Both are blankets. Even if one is bigger, that does not mean you are not holding onto one. You are trying to seperate X and X, to make your case look stronger. You hold onto your blanket tighter than many religious people hold onto theirs. However little it is, you hold onto it with a titan grip.
No. It does not. This topic is about religion in general and not about Christian creationism. You would have known this if you paid some attention to the opening post and the discussions that you have been part in.
Can you prove that religion is not reality? You can not. You do not even have to answer that. I know you can not prove that religion is not reality. You can probably disprove a few religious positions, in a few of the thousands of religious faiths out there. You can not disprove the reality of religion, though.
Very few in this world has blind belief. Many has a reason for believing and that makes it anything but blind. Do you guys not know the definition of the words and sayings you blurt out?
You contributed in no way, not with your cites or with your talk about science. You created the delusion of contribution, by speaking in favor of science. Science is not on trial here and has no place here. This thread has nothing to do with science, so no matter how much science shit you spit out, you will not contribute.
You might think you do, but you don't. Which is why it is embarassing for me as a non-religious to watch you oppose religion. It hurts me just how bad you are. How little you contribute. It physically ache to see you and 0mega write your cases.
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
believing in a invisible magic ninja i s illogical & is flawed thinking
Not if you have good reason for doing so, you imbecile. Learn the meaning of the words you use.
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
man wtf are you on about? you believe in caesar but cant prove him?the guy is in different documentations, on coins, statues, people telling how they murdered him... WTF makes you doubt his existence?
God is in different documentations, on idols, statues. Friedrich Nietzsche said that we killed God, so there's a confession of that as well.
What makes you doubt God's existence?
I find it so ironic that atheists, swearing by science and all we can prove and see, would actually go as far as to say that due to the fact that we have no proof, God obviously does not exist.
If everyone thought such ''enlightened'' thoughts throughout the ages, that if we have no proof and at present no way of finding something out, it must not exist, we would most likely be still living in caves.
What brought us to the age that we're at now is believing in something that was impossible to phantom, impossible to prove and at times ludicrous.
Without proper equipment you cannot hear high pitch sounds - animals can. Does that mean that those frequencies simply did not exist just because we, as humans are unable to hear them?
Also, cats and dogs see completely differently to us - whose sight is true? Those who cannot see what we see, but can detect and see movement we cannot? Or is it us, humans, with the way we see things?
Whose world perspective is truer?
Any person who suggests that everything there is to prove, know and find out has already been discovered, proved, found and known is simply ridiculous - far more ridiculous than any absurd religious story you can come up with.
Originally posted by Super Marie 64😆 gods a phucking supernatural space entity thats why i doubt him you r3tard 😆
[b]God is in different documentations, on idols, statues. Friedrich Nietzsche said that we killed God, so there's a confession of that as well.What makes you doubt God's existence?
[/B]
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Without proper equipment you cannot hear high pitch sounds - animals can. Does that mean that those frequencies simply did not exist just because we, as humans are unable to hear them?
Atoms is my favorite example.
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
😆 gods a phucking supernatural space entity thats why i doubt him you r3tard 😆
Careful. People has been warned for less. I even think working around the cuss-word filter is against the rules. It was at least on another forum I was part of.
All your post suggest is that you do not understand it. That's no proof, that's just ignorance. Confessed ignorance, actually.
Originally posted by 0mega SpawnYou all-together avoid questions and statement you can't answer. The courage of the Internet warriors.
A lack of evidence point to a lack of evidence. It does not point to the evidence of something else. You have no evidence that he does not exist. For this reason, lacking evidence that he exist is mute. They do not need it, since you can not disprove it if they can not provide proof of it.
That is called a stalemate, not checkmate.
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
A lack of evidence point to a lack of evidence? im starting to really think you slow. 😬in any case my question is
does the lack of evidence point to gods existence or non existence?
it either one or the other 😬 no paragraphs needed
You think that 'lacking evidence meaning having a lack of evidence' is wrong?
Seriously?