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

not to offend the sore religious people

but why is the concept of evidence so hard to understand?
any given site ANY someone says "evidence please" and people quote scriptures on & on. sigh... its a frustrating loop -_-

its the equivalent of someone telling someone there is no hogwarts full of wizards & in response they start reading the dam spells

Well naturally... theres a bloody good reason that no proof comes forward...


...its because the claims are 99.8% likely to be untrue.

Thats why in lieu of proof, most of the religiously 'offended' proceed instead to attack either/and/or atheism - like its got an agenda (As opposed realising that its simply a rejection of the 'offended' person's (unbacked up, convoluted unprovable) 'belief'.

Faith. Look it up.

Already did. Its not automatically a virtue...

I've got reasonable, earned faith that gravity works, as it can be tested at any given moment and is predictable..... Easily tested by jumping from a height.

If I hold my laptop up, at shoulder height whilst standing, and let go,
no amount of your or anyone's faith is gonna stop that crashing to a destructy demise.

I have faith in that.

Feel free give your computer a similar test, if you dispute this.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Faith. Look it up. thats evidence? wow all the magical workings of god summed up in 1 word nice one

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
thats evidence? wow all the magical workings of god summed up in 1 word nice one

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Feel free give your computer a similar test, if you dispute this.


Well hes not replied....is his computer now screwed? lol

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well hes not replied....is his computer now screwed? lol wouldn't be surprised


hey you ever watch EdwardCurrent youtube vids he makes hilarious atheist satires heres one
swlsqkAyxqY&feature=related how a person watches this and not be embarrassed to be christian is beyond me

Seems very Sam Harrisy to me.....nothing wrong with that, just similar prowess at combining the truth/humour thing....

God is someone you have to believe reather or not there is any evidence you just know.and I think that is stronger then any evidence.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
God is someone you have to believe reather or not there is any evidence you just know.and I think that is stronger then any evidence. so you know without a doubt there is a god? but cant present any evidence. thats odd

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Seems very Sam Harrisy to me.....nothing wrong with that, just similar prowess at combining the truth/humour thing.... true comedians do call out the truth

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
God is someone you have to believe reather or not there is any evidence you just know.and I think that is stronger then any evidence.

I disagree.

NO ONE is someone you HAVE to believe with NO evidence, especially when the outline/synopsis of what they are saying goes against all knowledge of direct, and widely testable experience.

Evidence is evidence. Nothing else is.

Its why murder trials are decided on evidence rather than a guy on the benches saying: "Well of course I cannot or shouldn't ever have to prove it, but Darkside Jedi bumped off John F Kennedy...."

Of course your perfectly understandable reply would be "Rubbish! I never did that! Prove it!!!!!" and if they couldn't, the case would get laughed out of court, as the case was and would be ridiculous.

What about faith?People offen believe in something that they don't see and they need no evidence on it.Its faith and knowing that gets you to believe.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
not to offend the sore religious people

but why is the concept of evidence so hard to understand?
any given site ANY someone says "evidence please" and people quote scriptures on & on. sigh... its a frustrating loop -_-

its the equivalent of someone telling someone there is no hogwarts full of wizards & in response they start reading the dam spells

I know it is not proof of any kind to you or most, but faith is my proof. There are two fundamental princips to my faith, that help my faith remain steady

- You can not fear something you do not believe in
- The universe came to be

Now, few if not none at all will agree with me. That's the sweet part of faith I don't need people to agree. I have it and that's good enough for me.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
What about faith?People offen believe in something that they don't see and they need no evidence on it.Its faith and knowing that gets you to believe. LOL that word again. faith
faith believing in something without any evidence whatsoever

i have faith that a woman flys around the globe to collect missing teeth from under kids pillow

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
What about faith?People offen believe in something that they don't see and they need no evidence on it.Its faith and knowing that gets you to believe.

But if proof of the contrary comes along and discredits it, its dumb to go on believing.

We all probably believed in Santa once.
When I heard a more convincing explanation of where the christmas presents were coming from, I left the old "Santa did it" theory behind.

As for 'knowing inside'... Regardless of what the outside (Religion)says
Its the similarly authorative 'knowing' otherwise* that lead me to reject religion.
When I looked at the many, many, many absurd notions, fallacies, contradictions in them, and found WAY better explanations for how the universe works since in science, I came to my own conclusion that I was right in my suspicions.

And what a coincidence, Religious institutions and organisations opposed scientific discovery right from the get go.

Look up Ptolemy, Galileo, church on Google.

Look up "Creationist history/science taught in schools"



* I think you mean SUSPECT not "know".

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
LOL that word again. faith
faith believing in something without any evidence whatsoever

i have faith that a woman flys around the globe to collect missing teeth from under kids pillow

Answer me then what the difference between gravity and spiritual faith is.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
Answer me then what the difference between gravity and spiritual faith is. i can see gravity actually affecting the world

drop a pen... gravity
jump... gravity

Gravity is a theory that can be tested, with predictable results.

Spiritual faith is:

A) Often nothing to do with religion
B) In constant flux and is a human subjective perceptory thing located to the "believer"



Gravity is:

A) Testable
B) Seeable, thanks to spectrography and noting gravitys bending of light via the wavelengths of light from background stars being altered as light travels through the field of a body or black hole between the light emitting star in the background.
C) It can even affect time.

I think the question, to put it back to you, is:
"What is it that you think that the two have in common at all?"

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Gravity is a theory that can be tested, with predictable results.

Spiritual faith is:
A) Often nothing to do with religion
B) In constant flux and is a human subjective perceptory thing located to the "believer"

Gravity is:
A) Testable
B) Seeable, thanks to spectrography and noting gravitys bending of light via the wavelengths of light being altered as light travels through the field.

I think the question, to put it back to you, is:
"What is it that you think that the two have in common at all?" i think he was riding the you cant see gravity train sad to be honest

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i can see gravity actually affecting the world

drop a pen... gravity
jump... gravity

Well I guess judging by 9/11, the bloody history of Ireland, The crusades, Institutional Paedophillia in faith organisations, The middle east, Slavery, The Nazis, Genocide and the whole other litany of horrors going back to the bible and before it with all previous religions,
we can see the effects of religion on the world of humans that give religion its "power" too.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Gravity is a theory that can be tested, with predictable results.

Spiritual faith is:
A) Often nothing to do with religion
B) In constant flux and is a human subjective perceptory thing located to the "believer"

Gravity is:
A) Testable
B) Seeable, thanks to spectrography and noting gravitys bending of light via the wavelengths of light being altered as light travels through the field.

I think the question, to put it back to you, is:
"What is it that you think that the two have in common at all?"

Spiritual faith
A) Religion is the practise of spiritual faith. I am in no way part of organized religion, but I'm still religious because of my faith in spirituality.
B) Something being subjective doesn't make it false, though. My faith give me strength in ways gravity or a lack of faith never would. I know this since I've lived without it.

Gravity
A) I've had my faith tested and it pulled through. In the darkest of hours, my faith has glown brighter than gravity could ever pull.
B) Like how I've seen the hand of fate move entire philosophies of life. Not through scientific material, of course.

To answer your question: Existence. Simple, eh?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i can see gravity actually affecting the world

drop a pen... gravity
jump... gravity

I can see faith affecting the world.

A) Nope its the organised, practice of worshipping unquestioning fashion a deity.
B) That barely washes even in "All truths are True no matter how contradictory they all are' debates, that is another in built command in religion. There is only one truth. Nothing else is true.


A) So? You just left a steaming coil of non sequitor in that part.
So if your faith is stronger than gravity, jump out of the window.
And see if you fall..
B) Second bit didn't actually make a lick of sense.

I say modern knowledge of that existance contradicts religion.
Prove otherwise.


So do I. And its not for the good, either, as I listed in my previous post.

Q'Anilia LOL you're hilarious

you see faith affecting our world? how so? does praying have a 100% success rate? nope
has faith stopped a war? nope
_____________________________

lol you saying existence is proof of god?
plz o plz elaborate this one

I've had my faith tested and it pulled through. In the darkest of hours, my faith has glown brighter than gravity could ever pull... wow, just wow

Spiritual Faith
A) Yes, it is. Nothing about religion dictate it has to be organized, or even the worship of a deity.
B) False as well. There's no decree, not cosmic, universal nor human, that there is only one truth. I have not been saying that there is no false, so I am crossing my fingers that is not what you imply. A contradiction can be true as well, so even that is false. If you do not acknowledge this, I can provide examples of multiple truths and of true contradictions.

Gravity
A) But you are not saying that my experience is false. Only that I do not have science to back it up.
B) It very much does. I've seen people change their way of life, even gained religion. Faith has picked them up when they were down and fading. I have seen this.
I assume you have two different definitions of seeing, though, since my seeing might not be the kind of seeing you have in mind?


To quote myself not many posts ago: "I know this is not proof of any kind to you" and "Faith is my proof". I could also reference to my fundamental princips of faith, but I think you remember those.

I have seen religion do good. If you claim otherwise, then you express ignorance. Religion has done a great deal of wrong, it's done a great deal of evil, but so has science. That does not mean science does not affect the world.

In fact, Science has harmed the world and its people more than Religion ever has.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
Q'Anilia LOL you're hilarious

you see faith affecting our world? how so?

Sadako of Girth sees it too. Why not laugh at him while you're at it? Because he's helping your case and I'm not?

science hasn't harmed anything . man has harmed the world man & their halfazzed beliefs
whatever it is

faith may be helpful for a false sense of something... like sugar pills.
when in reality you always had the ability to change your circumstances.

things change what's so hard to understand?

why are you still comparing faith & gravity

faith - believing in something without no evidence whatsoever

not comparable to gravity at all sees what? i would laugh at him if he were being a absurdly typical blind religious buff going on about how his faith is stronger than gravity

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
Q'Anilia LOL you're hilarious

you see faith affecting our world? how so? does praying have a 100% success rate? nope
has faith stopped a war? nope
_____________________________

lol you saying existence is proof of god?
plz o plz elaborate this one

I've had my faith tested and it pulled through. In the darkest of hours, my faith has glown brighter than gravity could ever pull... wow, just wow

You're here to troll, aren't you? No matter, I welcome a good discussion any day. A second perspective on faith might do you some good, as it has done to me.

How I see faith affecting the world, is through Christian and otherwise organizations that actively help the ones in need. Some for the wrong reason, but they still help. I see suicide cases turn their lives around because of God. I see societies having functioned and currently functioning because of a joint faith in the mighty God.


Does sitting and hoping for luck have a 100% success rate? Nope. Yet many atheists does this. Funnily enough, many express faith in fate when they do this. An atheist can clutch his hands and hope for luck to come through when his dying wife lies in a hospital bed. Expression of faith, religious or not.


I find it entertaining how often when a topic about if religion is good often resort to talking about war and death. I am sorry to say it, but science has stopped as few wars as religion has. From the top of my head, I can not think of one war that science has won.

I suppose you could talk about the nuclear bombing of Japan, but I don't see how that will help your case. For faith and wars ended through it, the only real reference I can make is Gandhi and the Brittish Empire. It's anything but him alone that ended the whole drama, but faith was of great contribution to the result. His faith and the practise of non-violence. Which is a faith as well


I am not saying existence is proof of God. I don't believe in God. I'm not saying he doesn't exist, since I can't prove this to be true, but I have little to no faith in him. I do in many of his followers though, but that's a different matter.

I'm saying existing is what faith and gravity has in common, which was the question. The question wasn't about God


You mock my faith? That doesn't look good on your record for any discussion. It's one thing to doubt or not believe the faith of another, and a whole other to make fun of it. I suggest you stop, or you WILL get in trouble.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
science hasn't harmed anything . man has harmed the world man & their halfazzed beliefs
whatever it is

faith may be helpful for a false sense of something... like sugar pills.
when in reality you always had the ability to change your circumstances.

things change what's so hard to understand?

why are you still comparing faith & gravity

faith - believing in something without no evidence whatsoever

not comparable to gravity at all sees what? i would laugh at him if he were being a absurdly typical blind religious buff going on about how his faith is stronger than gravity

You don't realize the contradiction in your beliefs?

Science itself has not harmed anyone. NEITHER HAS RELIGION. It's people that harm eachother, through the use of science or religion. And through the use of science, more has died than there ever has through the use of religion.


"False sense of something"? That's hitting the nail on the head.
A false sense of significance? A false sense of mattering? A false sense of not being a pawn? A false sense of reason for being? You'll have to elaborate.

If you always have had it in you to change the circumstances of your situation, you would not need faith. Faith would not exist. Faith exist because some people need it, and because these people need it, it's needed.


I am comparing faith to gravity, because gravity was brought up as an example and a metaphor for science. Comparing gravity to faith, is putting religion up against science, but in a far more earthbound manner. By comparing faith to gravity, it's easier to associate, for everyone.


Faith - Believing. The rest of your definition is redundant, since all it does is put it in a negative light. It doesn't give it another meaning, or turn it into another word. It doesn't give a better understanding of what faith is, so you might as well keep it simple.


He sees that religion affects the world. How he sees it, you'll have to take up with him. All I know is that when I said I see it, you laugh, but when he said he does, you don't acknowledge it at all. You're out to question me, not the topic, it seems.

troll? im not the one saying my faith is stronger than gravity.
my thread is asking for this evidence of god which nobody has presented yet,only in the form of faith which can be applied to every fairytale. me laughing at your faith is not the same as mocking so don't even pull that card. sitting & waiting for 100% success rate? WTF are you talking about they do studies & trails
you're just saying stuff lol

you don't believe in god but don't not believe in him wow
you believe in his followers who happen to be men following a god.

LMAO wow your ridiculously long posts saying nothing except
you have no scientific proof of a god. faith is stronger than gravity.and that you seeing people getting better is a sign that faith helps which ive said before... sugar pills

So you're an agnostic then, Q'Anilia?

Science made guns.

Science made the longbow.

Science did indeeed end the japanese effeorts of WW2.

Youre actually reading this on technology that helped fight and win wars, than science made...a computer monitor.

And the crucial thing that you overlook is that Religion CAUSES war, where as Science hasn't.

If you go down the road of comparing relgion to guns in the "Guns dont kill people, People do." sense, I'd ask you to compare the amount of shootings in the US to the amount of shootings in the UK.

People will always fight, but it helps reduce the killing, if guns are removed.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
thats evidence? wow all the magical workings of god summed up in 1 word nice one OK then, you for me to prove God's existence, right? I now ask you to DISPROVE his existence. Show me hard core definitive evidence that he does NOT exist.

You can't. I can't. This is where faith comes into play. I have faith that God exists, that's all I need. There is literally no way to prove or disprove Gods existence.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
so you know without a doubt there is a god? but cant present any evidence. thats odd Hey, I got an idea, prove he DOESN'T exist.



Go ahead, we'll wait......

contradiction? are you mentally challenged? i said how is this a contradiction nowhere did i say religioun harmed anything

you frustrating me sigh congratulations

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Hey, I got an idea, prove he DOESN'T exist.



Go ahead, we'll wait...... can you see god? no
can you smell god? no
can you touch god? no
can you hear god? no

seems the answers no down the board. to a normal mind it would seem there isnt one

unless you can do either of those

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
So you're an agnostic then, Q'Anilia?

Science made guns.

Science made the longbow.

Science did indeeed end the japanese effeorts of WW2.

Youre actually reading this on technology that helped fight and win wars, than science made...a computer monitor.

And the crucial thing that you overlook is that Religion CAUSES war, where as Science hasn't.

I am agnostic, but I am also religious. I would love to elaborate on this further down the road, but I have to leave now

I will give you that science has ended war. I apologize for that display of ignorance. I was just so caught up in the loose definition of science and religion not being so much responsible as the humans behind them, that my mind digressed a little.

I will add, however, what I should've from the start but I can't imagine I really have to: You can not create a parallel between science and religion. At least not with many outside the belief of creationism.

So discussing how much good/bad religion/science has done for the world, is really not the most effective nor intelligent way to discuss the matter. I think we can agree on that, since it doesn't at all contribute to the topic. It can in no way "answer the question"


For now, bye all

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I am agnostic, but I am also religious. I would love to elaborate on this further down the road, but I have to leave now

I will give you that science has ended war. I apologize for that display of ignorance. I was just so caught up in the loose definition of science and religion not being so much responsible as the humans behind them, that my mind digressed a little.

I will add, however, what I should've from the start but I can't imagine I really have to: You can not create a parallel between science and religion. At least not with many outside the belief of creationism.

So discussing how much good/bad religion/science has done for the world, is really not the most effective nor intelligent way to discuss the matter. I think we can agree on that, since it doesn't at all contribute to the topic. It can in no way "answer the question"


For now, bye all later crazy

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Hey, I got an idea, prove he DOESN'T exist.



Go ahead, we'll wait......

Right after you prove that theres not a sky fairy pulling the puppet you call god's strings.

Due the religious are the ones making the big wild unsubstantiated claims...burden (And that is SOME burden) is yours, dude.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
can you see god? no
can you smell god?
can you touch god?
can you hear god?

seems the answers no down the board. to a normal mind it would seem there isnt one

unless you can do either of those Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

See, if I were going around preaching the gospel to others, trying to convert them, you'd have a right to ask me to prove God's existence. Thing is, I don't do that because I realize it's a futile effort. God is all about free will, it's one of the greatest gifts he gave us. If I go around trying to change someone's beliefs, I'm messing with their free will. The journey to discovering God, IMO, is a personal one.

I have faith in God because of certain events that happened to me in my early 20's. Since then I have been Christian, my faith unshakable. It's not like God came down one day and bought me a cheeseburger haermm




Now, there you have it. You have my reason as to why I am not obligated to prove God exists. You also have my reason for being a Christian.


Now.....When you ask the forum for evidence of God's existence, you place yourself in the position of disproving his existence, for the simple fact that you ask for proof.




So......Where's your proof of his non existence? That you cannot see, touch, hear or smell him? Dude that's WEAK. It's like you saying "Hey, cheese gives you herpes!!!!" and I say "No, it doesn't. Prove it."


Prove it.

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I am agnostic, but I am also religious. I would love to elaborate on this further down the road, but I have to leave now

I will give you that science has ended war. I apologize for that display of ignorance. I was just so caught up in the loose definition of science and religion not being so much responsible as the humans behind them, that my mind digressed a little.

I will add, however, what I should've from the start but I can't imagine I really have to: You can not create a parallel between science and religion. At least not with many outside the belief of creationism.

So discussing how much good/bad religion/science has done for the world, is really not the most effective nor intelligent way to discuss the matter. I think we can agree on that, since it doesn't at all contribute to the topic. It can in no way "answer the question"


For now, bye all

I disagree on your closing point.

Science cannot be ignored, and trying to shame everyone into ignoring science here wont help your argument. (I know that it contradicts religion, and its real, so that doesnt suit the Religious side's argument, but since the irony is that any evidence that IS evidence should stand up to scrutiny....)

(Unlike God, in all likelihood.)

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Right after you prove that theres not a sky fairy pulling the puppet you call god's strings.

Due the religious are the ones making the big wild unsubstantiated claims...burden (And that is SOME burden) is yours, dude. No, you don't get it.

I believe in God. It's a personal belief of mine. I'm not the one asking for proof of anything. The only time I asked for proof is when I was asked to provide proof of his existence.


I love this shit, typical atheist/agnostic stance: "I don't have to prove he does not exist, but YOU have to prove he exists." Look who started the thread, Jacko, look at who asked for proof. It's completely fair for myself and others to ask for the same thing.

Laughable. Bottom line is this: One either has faith in God, or not. There is literally no way to prove or disprove him.

am i the only person curious as to how you prove something DOESN'T exist

sounds like a wild goose chase...

if i were to prove god doesn't exist wouldn't i start by searching for him

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
am i the only person curious as to how you prove something DOESN'T exist

sounds like a wild goose chase...

if i were to prove god doesn't exist wouldn't i start by searching for him

OK, right back at you. How is anyone supposed to prove that God exists? How is someone supposed to provide hard core evidence that he exists?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
OK, right back at you. How is anyone supposed to prove that God exists? How is someone supposed to provide hard core evidence that he exists? so in otherwords theres no proof he exists and no proof he doesn't exist because he nowhere to be found thus non existant

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

See, if I were going around preaching the gospel to others, trying to convert them, you'd have a right to ask me to prove God's existence. Thing is, I don't do that because I realize it's a futile effort. God is all about free will, it's one of the greatest gifts he gave us. If I go around trying to change someone's beliefs, I'm messing with their free will. The journey to discovering God, IMO, is a personal one.

I have faith in God because of certain events that happened to me in my early 20's. Since then I have been Christian, my faith unshakable. It's not like God came down one day and bought me a cheeseburger haermm




Now, there you have it. You have my reason as to why I am not obligated to prove God exists. You also have my reason for being a Christian.


Now.....When you ask the forum for evidence of God's existence, you place yourself in the position of disproving his existence, for the simple fact that you ask for proof.




So......Where's your proof of his non existence? That you cannot see, touch, hear or smell him? Dude that's WEAK. It's like you saying "Hey, cheese gives you herpes!!!!" and I say "No, it doesn't. Prove it."


Prove it.

Well until you elaborate on this incontrovertible proof of yours,
we're gonna have remain very very dubious about its cred as proof.

No hes not placed himself in that position at all. You simply dont understand.

Whether or not YOU preach, your religion does, and its very active in trying to tell people what to do.

Your line of responsibility shrugging is close to nuremberg defence in that regard.

If you had half the conviction in your god belief you now claim to have, you would have to know that you would be deeeeeeeep in the lake of fire by now.....

Nice that you have that to look forward to, eh...?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
so in otherwords theres no proof he exists and no proof he doesn't exist because he nowhere to be found thus non existant I can tell you this: Since my awakening, I have several vital prayers answered. I am more at peace than ever before.


Now, let's say I am full of shit here. So I'm full of shit, and? If believing in God makes me feel better, if it brings me peace, why would you DARE question it? You (non believers) do your thing, and let us (believers) do ours. Don't ask us for proof, and we'll return the favor.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
so in otherwords theres no proof he exists and no proof he doesn't exist because he nowhere to be found thus non existant

There's no proof that Julius Caesar existed. Does that mean he did not?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No, you don't get it.

I believe in God. It's a personal belief of mine. I'm not the one asking for proof of anything. The only time I asked for proof is when I was asked to provide proof of his existence.


I love this shit, typical atheist/agnostic stance: "I don't have to prove he does not exist, but YOU have to prove he exists." Look who started the thread, Jacko, look at who asked for proof. It's completely fair for myself and others to ask for the same thing.

Laughable. Bottom line is this: One either has faith in God, or not. There is literally no way to prove or disprove him.

Nope. I have to prove it no maore than you can prove that theres not an invisible ninja I sent to watch you in the room. Hes invisible. You cant smell of touch him......

now if asserted that seriously, I would have to bring some proof, right?

Calling believers of science. Calling believers of science.

That side of the argument needs some stronger defenders of their case against religion. This is weak.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well until you elaborate on this incontrovertible proof of yours,
we're gonna have remain very very dubious about its cred as proof.

No hes not placed himself in that position at all. You simply dont understand.

Whether or not YOU preach, your religion does, and its very active in trying to tell people what to do.

Your line of responsibility shrugging is close to nuremberg defence in that regard.

If you had half the conviction in your god belief you now claim to have, you would have to know that you would be deeeeeeeep in the lake of fire by now.

Nice that you have that to look forward to, eh...? Lulz I don't have to elaborate on anything. The only people who know are ones I trust with it, ones I consider close.

My religion preaches, but I don't. You wanna have this conversation, go to church and talk to a preacher.

Yes, I know that, according to the bible, I don't do all the things I am supposed to to be a "good Christian", but hey, that's my problem, not yours. Am I supposed to say "Oh well, I don't do every little thing I am supposed to, so bollocks with it?" Nope, can't do that. IMO God is a vengeful God, not a petty God. I don't take everything the bible says literally.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I can tell you this: Since my awakening, I have several vital prayers answered. I am more at peace than ever before.


Now, let's say I am full of shit here. So I'm full of shit, and? If believing in God makes me feel better, if it brings me peace, why would you DARE question it? You (non believers) do your thing, and let us (believers) do ours. Don't ask us for proof, and we'll return the favor. well because i don't like to be told im going to a place to be tortured, or other people for that matter, nor i like obvious scammers on TV on sunday

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
There's no proof that Julius Caesar existed. Does that mean he did not?

There is. Writings, coins with his face on etc etc etc History with proven testable artifacts. The remains of Rome.... Probably DNA coding...

PLUS Belief in Julias Caesar's existence requires no control over me.
And it requires me to suspend not ONE bit of my critical faculties in order to accept it as a possiblity.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
Calling believers of science. Calling believers of science.

That side of the argument needs some stronger defenders of their case against religion. This is weak. Indeed. "Hey, we can't see him, touch him or feel him, hey, he doesn't exist!!!" haermm


Closed minded fools.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
Calling believers of science. Calling believers of science.

That side of the argument needs some stronger defenders of their case against religion. This is weak. believers of science you mean atheists right. unless you don't believe science

and weak how? im asking for evidence which coincidentally hasn't been shown yet

try giving real input genius

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Lulz I don't have to elaborate on anything. The only people who know are ones I trust with it, ones I consider close.

My religion preaches, but I don't. You wanna have this conversation, go to church and talk to a preacher.

Yes, I know that, according to the bible, I don't do all the things I am supposed to to be a "good Christian", but hey, that's my problem, not yours. Am I supposed to say "Oh well, I don't do every little thing I am supposed to, so bollocks with it?" Nope, can't do that. IMO God is a vengeful God, not a petty God. I don't take everything the bible says literally.

How convenient.

Youre preaching that Atheism is wrong in your statements like "typical athiest" whilst speaking derogatorily, and embarrassingly inaccurately.

Well the bible says otherwise.
Hes petty and fickle too...all the time according to it.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
There's no proof that Julius Caesar existed. Does that mean he did not? why would i doubt the existence of a man

were talking about a god of miracles & creator of the universe

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Indeed. "Hey, we can't see him, touch him or feel him, hey, he doesn't exist!!!" haermm


Closed minded fools.

He who calls his brother a fool will go to hell...
Your problem, I know.....

Proved that magic ninja not In front of you yet? Nope.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
believers of science you mean atheists right. unless you don't believe science

and weak how? im asking for evidence which coincidentally hasn't been shown yet

try giving real input genius You're being a hypocrite. You're asking us for proof that we cannot provide, proof that the most renowned biblical scholars cannot provide. At the same time, you offer nothing in the line of evidence that he does not exist.


Tell you what, prove God does not exist. Hard core definitive evidence, and I'll convert to atheism. That's a direct open challenge to all atheists/agnostics who ask for evidence of God's existence.


Put up or shut up.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
He who calls his brother a fool will go to hell...
Your problem, I know.....

Proved that magic ninja not In front of you yet? Nope. magic ninja

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
Calling believers of science. Calling believers of science.

That side of the argument needs some stronger defenders of their case against religion. This is weak.

What an informative and entirely worthwhile contribution.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
He who calls his brother a fool will go to hell...
Your problem, I know.....

Proved that magic ninja not In front of you yet? Nope. I don't need proof. I have my faith, that's all I need.

You do not believe in God and cannot disprove his existence.

I believe in God and cannot prove his existence.


Why can't you just leave it at that?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You're being a hypocrite. You're asking us for proof that we cannot provide, proof that the most renowned biblical scholars cannot provide. At the same time, you offer nothing in the line of evidence that he does not exist.


Tell you what, prove God does not exist. Hard core definitive evidence, and I'll convert to atheism. That's a direct open challenge to all atheists/agnostics who ask for evidence of God's existence.


Put up or shut up.

Ive already shown where man was wrong about his god hypothesis (And that all it ever really was) at times in history.

Not show me proof where he was right...?

Right. You cant. So youre converting now, then we'll assume?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You're being a hypocrite. You're asking us for proof that we cannot provide, proof that the most renowned biblical scholars cannot provide. At the same time, you offer nothing in the line of evidence that he does not exist.


Tell you what, prove God does not exist. Hard core definitive evidence, and I'll convert to atheism. That's a direct open challenge to all atheists/agnostics who ask for evidence of God's existence.


Put up or shut up. are you thinking before you type? LOL

religious side: no proof of gods existence

atheist side: no proof he doesn't exist

no proof god doesn't exist + no proof gods exist = non existent

to a mentally sound person anyway

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
There is. Writings, coins with his face on etc etc etc History with proven testable artifacts. The remains of Rome.... Probably DNA coding...

PLUS Belief in Julias Caesar's existence requires no control over me.
And it requires me to suspend not ONE bit of my critical faculties in order to accept it as a possiblity.



Fabrications. I can write extensive biographies of a false individual today in various languages, intellectually manipulate my personality in the text and write it in five different languages. I will then spread it around the world and when archeologists discover these books a thousand years from now, they just might use them as proof that this person existed.

Want a genuine letter, written by Dicky McFail, saying he's accepting an employment for a secret organization?

The DNA can be someone elses, unless you have him by your side to test it in person. For my fictional biographic pieces, I can use the DNA of a deceased baby and it'll all work out.


I am not asking about your belief in Julius Caesar. I'm asking for proof that he ever existed. You are pretty sure that he existed, because there are a shitload of indications of it, but you can not prove it. You can only reference to others writing.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
believers of science you mean atheists right. unless you don't believe science

and weak how? im asking for evidence which coincidentally hasn't been shown yet

try giving real input genius

No. I mean believers in science. It takes a certain amount of belief in order to refuse God. Which you are doing. Since we segregate science and religion, why not go all the way and call you believer in science. Since you preach science.

It is weak, because you have no proper footing. I have seen very little effort from any of you science dudes to give them any reason not to believe in God.

You ask for proof of God. They give you the reason why they believe. You have not presented a case that prove their reason wrong. All you have done is asked them to prove it more. Once they do this, you will ask them to prove it even more. Then even more.

You are weak, because you do not meet them half-way. You just ask, ask, ask. When they give, you ask for more. Learn to give, or you will be forever weak.
The show you put out, it's a pathetic display of desperate men sticking to their one argument, clinging to it like a baby to a blanket.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I don't need proof. I have my faith, that's all I need.

You do not believe in God and cannot disprove his existence.

I believe in God and cannot prove his existence.


Why can't you just leave it at that?


The first line was enough to show us the utter lack of merit then that any opinion you could have would contain.

The reason Im not leaving it at 'that' is that Ive already proved that religion and God attributed deeds have been shown to be false, historically....you're misrepresenting/ignoring.

And the statement can be mirrored with 100% righteousness.
I dont need any proof, then that God doesn't exist.

really i thought it was lack of belief

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
Fabrications. I can write extensive biographies of a false individual today in various languages, intellectually manipulate my personality in the text and write it in five different languages. I will then spread it around the world and when archeologists discover these books a thousand years from now, they just might use them as proof that this person existed.

Want a genuine letter, written by Dicky McFail, saying he's accepting an employment for a secret organization?

The DNA can be someone elses, unless you have him by your side to test it in person. For my fictional biographic pieces, I can use the DNA of a deceased baby and it'll all work out.


I am not asking about your belief in Julius Caesar. I'm asking for proof that he ever existed. You are pretty sure that he existed, because there are a shitload of indications of it, but you can not prove it. You can only reference to others writing.



No. I mean believers in science. It takes a certain amount of belief in order to refuse God. Which you are doing. Since we segregate science and religion, why not go all the way and call you believer in science. Since you preach science.

It is weak, because you have no proper footing. I have seen very little effort from any of you science dudes to give them any reason not to believe in God.

You ask for proof of God. They give you the reason why they believe. You have not presented a case that prove their reason wrong. All you have done is asked them to prove it more. Once they do this, you will ask them to prove it even more. Then even more.

You are weak, because you do not meet them half-way. You just ask, ask, ask. When they give, you ask for more. Learn to give, or you will be forever weak.
The show you put out, it's a pathetic display of desperate men sticking to their one argument, clinging to it like a baby to a blanket.


Nope all it takes ia a rejection of the absurd claims made by religion.

LOL Blanket clinging... The core of religion.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
are you thinking before you type? LOL

religious side: no proof of gods existence

atheist side: no proof he doesn't exist

no proof god doesn't exist + no proof gods exist = non existent

to a mentally sound person anyway

This is true.

did you read the title? or my 1st post? i want evidence not trying to disprove anything but i will along the way

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ive already shown where man was wrong about his god hypothesis (And that all it ever really was) at times in history.

Not show me proof where he was right...?

Right. You cant. So youre converting now, then we'll assume? Lulz, not even a dent, bro. I lol at how atheists attribute their intentions as caring for us poor, delusional people, to help us realize that our faith is completely ill founded.


This is why I stay out of religious debates, people like you are too closed minded to discuss it with anything resembling objectivity.


Typical conversation between a Christian and an atheist:

Atheist: "I do not believe in God."

Christian: "Tell me why."

*The Christian listens closely as the atheist explains*

*When the atheist is done, the Christian decides to return the favor*


Christian: "OK, here's why I believe in God. I believe......."

*atheist covers ears and shakes head side to side*

Atheist: "NAANAANAANAANAANAANAAANAAA!!!!"



Peace.

sadako, on a side note, McClane believes in God Seems like that should be enough for you.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Lulz, not even a dent, bro. I lol at how atheists attribute their intentions as caring for us poor, delusional people, to help us realize that our faith is completely ill founded.


This is why I stay out of religious debates, people like you are too closed minded to discuss it with anything resembling objectivity.


Typical conversation between a Christian and an atheist:

Atheist: "I do not believe in God."

Christian: "Tell me why."

*The Christian listens closely as the atheist explains*

*When the atheist is done, the Christian decides to return the favor*


Christian: "OK, here's why I believe in God. I believe......."

*atheist covers ears and shakes head side to side*

Atheist: "NAANAANAANAANAANAANAAANAAA!!!!"



Peace. scenario brought to you by a christian

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
scenario brought to you by a christian No. A scenario I have witnessed many times over.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Lulz, not even a dent, bro. I lol at how atheists attribute their intentions as caring for us poor, delusional people, to help us realize that our faith is completely ill founded.


This is why I stay out of religious debates, people like you are too closed minded to discuss it with anything resembling objectivity.


Typical conversation between a Christian and an atheist:

Atheist: "I do not believe in God."

Christian: "Tell me why."

*The Christian listens closely as the atheist explains*

*When the atheist is done, the Christian decides to return the favor*


Christian: "OK, here's why I believe in God. I believe......."

*atheist covers ears and shakes head side to side*

Atheist: "NAANAANAANAANAANAANAAANAAA!!!!"



Peace.


Oh dear more roleplay in your head...?
Secular/totally non religious organisations do ALL the same jobs as the religious ones.

No the reason you stay out of religious debates is now patently obvious to us all.

Name a good deed that a religious dude could do, that a non religious one couldn't do......

Good ahead.

Do it.




Oh thats right, you cant.

Peace.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No. A scenario I have witnessed many times over. all an atheist would say is no evidence
then the christian would either say faith is evidence or say give me evidence he doesn't exist

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Oh dear more roleplay in your head...?
Sceular totally non religious organisations do ALL the same jobs as the religious ones.

No the reason you stay out of religious debates is now patently obvious to us all.

Name a good deed that a religious dude could do, that a non religious one couldn't do......

Good ahead.

Do it.




Oh thats right, you cant.

Peace. Deeds? Oh boy........You think it's about what we DO, our ACTS.



No time for such bullshit, have fun, guys.

I'm pretty sure asking a religious individual for proof of God's existence is hypocritical.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
really i thought it was lack of belief

You put faith in the power of science, you imbecile. You use science to present the premise that God might not be real. Learn what the words you use mean, before you use them. Dear God in Hell, is this all the counter-party can muster?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
are you thinking before you type? LOL

religious side: no proof of gods existence

atheist side: no proof he doesn't exist

no proof god doesn't exist + no proof gods exist = non existent

to a mentally sound person anyway

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
This is true.

This is a blunt example of just how bad a job you are doing, being the opposition of God.

A thousand years ago, it was impossible to prove that atoms existed. Today, you can do it almost with the snap of a finger. Does this mean they did not exist back then?

To say that it can not be proven means that it does not exist, is the greatest, most stupid argument an atheist can ever bring to a table. It is one of the reasons I am almost ashamed to not believe in God. Because of fools like you who think it is a legitimate argument and believe it is actually a case.

Again. Calling believers of science! This is weak.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty sure asking a religious individual for proof of God's existence is hypocritical. how

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No. A scenario I have witnessed many times over.


You really dont wanna start a conversation like that.

(IE the repeated scenarios shown by the religious....cause that'd just be embarrassing for you... and to be honest unlike you, I hate to generalise)

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
how

For they claim to need no proof.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
how crylaugh x infinity!!!!! It's like watching a retard trying to hump a doorknob!!!!! crylaugh

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
how Because no proof has ever been presented that would indicate that there is no God. Asking someone to provide proof for their side of the argument when you have no proof for your own is hypocritical.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because no proof has ever been presented that would indicate that there is no God. And in steps logic. Sup, dude.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
how

Because you assume your understanding of the situation is greater, when you question their faith. You do not need to prove, to verify the truth in your position, but you expect them to do so.

Hypocritical. Pathetic. Weak.

I like that word. Weak.

WOW JUST WOW

i put faith in science to premise that god isnt real ...are you phucking retarded? i don't use science as a tool to say god doesn't exist i use the fact that theres no evidence you really must be slow.

counter argument? im asking for proof which i STILL haven't seen

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
Because you assume your understanding of the situation is greater, when you question their faith. You do not need to prove, to verify the truth in your position, but you expect them to do so.

Hypocritical. Pathetic. Weak.

I like that word. Weak.


Because the truth is that most religious claims can be proved to be false, but strangely, that seems to be a one way dynamic, it seems.

I think the anger behind God even being questioned in some people is a huge denoter of the insecurity about their faith.
(No great shock: Even Mother Theresa was an atheist.)

"Hypocritical, pathetic and weak...?" Well....forgive us then.....

Sorry to hear that the truth hurts you so.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Because the truth is that most religious claims can be proved to be false,


Care to extrapolate on that?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because no proof has ever been presented that would indicate that there is no God. Asking someone to provide proof for their side of the argument when you have no proof for your own is hypocritical. i don't have proof god doesn't exist? besides the fact hes nowhere to be found huh? unless of course you found him?

if i were to prove god doesn't what proof would that consist proof of? anti god matter? not hypocritical at all

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
WOW JUST WOW

i put faith in science to premise that god isnt real ...are you phucking retarded? i don't use science as a tool to say god doesn't exist i use the fact that theres no evidence you really must be slow.

counter argument? im asking for proof which i STILL haven't seen

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i don't have proof god doesn't exist? besides the fact hes nowhere to be found huh? unless of course you found him?

if i were to prove god doesn't what proof would that consist proof of? anti god matter? not hypocritical at all

"Absence of proof is proof of absence" actually contradicts the Scientific method. So that's not science you're using, that's your own flawed logic.

c'mon sadako lets search for some anti god matter Jumpy

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope all it takes ia a rejection of the absurd claims made by religion.

LOL Blanket clinging... The core of religion.

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.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Except I actually forwarded an argument, so you'd sound silly..

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.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
"Absence of proof is proof of absence" actually contradicts the Scientific method. So that's not science you're using, that's your own flawed logic. my flawed logic? religious buff telling me about flawed logic now thats comedy

magic ninja man says hello

Whelp, I see that I'm not dealing with anyone of Digimark level intelligence here, so I'm out.

Also Atheism isnt on trial here.
Its just choosing not to believe fairy tales.


You faithful are all atheists.
You just believe in all other religions except your own....
Yet you attack those who are atheistic to your relgion. Hows THAT for hypocrisy and weakness?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
my flawed logic? religious buff telling me about flawed logic now thats comedy

magic ninja man says hello

Religion is not flawed logic. Learn the meaning of flawed and the meaning of logic before trying that stunt again.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Also Atheism isnt on trial here.
Its just choosing not to believe fairy tales.

Classic way to avoid proving your case.

what is so damn extraordinary that makes you doubt his existence? seriously

you comparing god to caesar lol

believing in a invisible magic ninja i s illogical & is flawed thinking

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
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.

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 RE: Blaxican
Whelp, I see that I'm not dealing with anyone of Digimark level intelligence here, so I'm out. magic ninja man says bye

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
what is so damn extraordinary that makes you doubt his existence? seriously

you 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 64




Classic way to avoid proving your case.

Nope its a classic way of showing that you have no case.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
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. 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?

Sheer pedanticism at this stage? Blended with classic strawmanning...?

You decide.

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
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? gods a phucking supernatural space entity thats why i doubt him you r3tard

ok does the lack of evidence point to the existence of god or the non existence hmm?

checkmate

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.

O_O no because we know animals can hear it

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
ok does the lack of evidence point to the existence of god or the non existence hmm?

checkmate

I love how you guys have been repeating what I said like two pages ago. uhuh

All the females in this thread owe me a kiss.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
You 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
O_O no because we know animals can hear it
How exactly did we find this out? Did it just randomly dawn on someone 600 years ago?
We didn't know it before we measured it, and if we did know it before we measured it, why the hell did we know it when we had no proof?

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

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?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How exactly did we find this out? Did it just randomly dawn on someone 600 years ago?
We didn't know it before we measured it, and if we did know it before we measured it, why the hell did we know it when we had no proof? someone had to notice to run tests obviously

Person 1: Prove God.

Person 2: I can't. I still believe in him

Person 1: That's cool. I don't.

Person 2: You still playing Tekken 6 tonight?

Person 1: Hells yeah! See you at 8:00.

Really guys, all this debate about something that is so simple?

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
You think that lacking evidence meaning having a lack of evidence is wrong?

Seriously? WTF answer the question

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
WTF answer the question

The answer is "Neither", now answer my question.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Person 1: Prove God.

Person 2: I can't. I still believe in him

Person 1: That's cool. I don't.

Person 2: You still playing Tekken 6 tonight?

Person 1: Hells yeah! See you at 8:00.

Really guys, all this debate about something that is so simple?

I am more in it for the debating than the outcome. I am debating in favor of the religious, even though I am more atheist than those two ever will be. That should say something about my presence here

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I love how you guys have been repeating what I said like two pages ago. uhuh

All the females in this thread owe me a kiss.

No, you owe me!

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
The answer is "Neither", now answer my question. don't try to worm your way out... lack of evidence cant point to the existence you clown

LOL you believe less in god than me not believing in god LOL you troll

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
someone had to notice to run tests obviously

So run some tests on religion yourself, since you seem to have noticed something no one else has.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
don't try to worm your way out... lack of evidence cant point to the existence you clown

I did not worm out. You are the one that did not answer MY question. I answered yours. It can also not point to the non-existence of God.

Allow me to demonstrate with an example you might understand:

Is this pencil green or yellow?

http://www.oneinhundred.com/upfiles/upimg5/Blue---Giant-pencil-5015275.jpg

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
LOL you believe less in god than me not believing in god LOL you troll

You can not even present legitimate reasons for not believing in God. You are an embarassment to proud atheists. I do not believe less in God, I am more atheist.

absence of proof is proof of absence i don't care what anybody says

lol silly theiest want people to look for anti god matter how retarded is that notion

It is not, though. You could not prove the atom existed a thousand years ago. Today, you know that we would not exist without it.

"Anti-God Matter" is not the same thing as "proof that God does not exist".

Again you avoided answering my question. Now you instead resorted into "I believe this. It doesn't matter what anyone else says".

Weak.

Is this pencil green or yellow? blue... & not comparable in the slightest


proof of god : evidence

proof of no god : would consist of no evidence of his existence
& there is no evidence of god... and being asked to find evidence of something that isnt there is retarded

simple

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
I am more in it for the debating than the outcome.

I can understand that.

no phucking evidence of him you retard you're blocked

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
Is this pencil green or yellow? blue... & not comparable in the slightest


proof of god : evidence

proof of no god : would consist of no evidence of his existence
& there is no evidence of god... and being asked to find evidence of something that isnt there is retarded

simple

You just answered that question in the same way as I answered your question. Neither of the options were true, so I made a third. Not "proof of non-existence" nor "proof of existence" is true, so the answer is "Neither", same as the answer to the pencil question is "Blue" when I presented the options "Green" and "Yellow"


You just do not know that he does not exist. That does not mean that he does not, nor does it mean that others has not found him.

The cavemen knew that the sun existed, that doesn't mean that they knew what purpose it served, nor could they prove it. They lacked the resources to do so. Not being able to prove something, is no reason to say it does not exist.

You are shaming good atheists out there. Stop now.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
no phucking evidence of him you retard you're blocked

That does not make you less wrong, nor does it make my truth go away. You can hide, you can run, but you're no less weak than you were seven pages ago.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Person 1: Prove God.

Person 2: I can't. I still believe in him

Person 1: That's cool. I don't.

Person 2: You still playing Tekken 6 tonight?

Person 1: Hells yeah! See you at 8:00.

Really guys, all this debate about something that is so simple? it is simple isnt it but retards like to complicate things

no evidence no god... gimme some evidence i'll gladly believe

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
OK then, you for me to prove God's existence, right? I now ask you to DISPROVE his existence. Show me hard core definitive evidence that he does NOT exist.

You can't. I can't. This is where faith comes into play. I have faith that God exists, that's all I need. There is literally no way to prove or disprove Gods existence.

That isn't how evidence works.

That's like saying "prove unicorns don't exist". Even if you checked under ever rock, nook, and cranny, you couldn't do it all at the same time etc.

The burdon of proof is on one's shoulders to prove that evidence DOES exist, not the other way around.

You can't prove a negative.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
There's no proof that Julius Caesar existed. Does that mean he did not?

Originally posted by jinzin
You can't prove a negative.

That is only true if you look at it from the most pedantic of perspectives.

If I prove that a car is red, than I am also proving that it is not yellow.

That aside, I wonder where that notion, that you can't prove a negative, came from.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You're being a hypocrite. You're asking us for proof that we cannot provide, /Thread

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
it is simple isnt it but retards like to complicate things

no evidence no god... gimme some evidence i'll gladly believe

Intellectually complicating things is actually suggesting that the individual is not a retard. I know you can not read this, but felt like saying it anyway.

Originally posted by jinzin


You use the same methods to prove Julius Caesar as you shoot down during a discussion about God. There are writings and sculptures that prove Julius Caesar. Nothing more. There is the Bible and sculptures that prove God.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That is only true if you look at it from the most pedantic of perspectives.

If I prove that a car is red, than I am also proving that it is not yellow.

That aside, I wonder where that notion, that you can't prove a negative, came from.

You didn't prove a negative there, you just illiminated the possibility of a positive with a tangible proof of another positive.

If one could do that with God that would be one thing, but, well, you can't.

Originally posted by jinzin
You didn't prove a negative there, you just illiminated the possibility of a positive with a tangible proof of another positive.

Care to rewrite that into a form that a mortal such as myself could understand?

Why is that?

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
You use the same methods to prove Julius Caesar as you shoot down during a discussion about God. There are writings and sculptures that prove Julius Caesar. Nothing more. There is the Bible and sculptures that prove God. Pretty sure this has already been delt with.

But your comparison isn't an accurate one at all.

Originally posted by jinzin
Pretty sure this has already been delt with.

But your comparison isn't an accurate one at all.

How, then, was it dealt with? I'm dying to know. If you are talking about 0mega and Sadako, that's outright insulting. They didn't deal with anything.


Exactly how is it not an accurate comparison? It is questioning the very fundamentals of what's needed to prove something at all.

We are not comparing Julius Caesar to God. We are establishing just how hard it is to prove a lot of things. God is an individual, active in a time long ago. You can not prove anyone from that time. You can only be very sure, never absolutely sure.

Not until we invent time-travel.

Guys, lack of evidence actually is a valid reason to deny something. If you make a claim and want to convince others, you'd have to provide proof.

That said, you are allowed to believe in something you can't prove. Even if what you believe is generally not accepted or even considered silly.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Care to rewrite that into a form that a mortal such as myself could understand?

Why is that?


Okay...

You didn't prove the car wasn't yellow by the merit of proving a negative alone.

What you DID do was prove that it WAS red.

I guess if you want to get really semantic about things you proved a negative, but only by proving the existence of something else with hard tangible evidence thus illiminating the possibility of an alternative through backtracking.

That's not proving a negative.



Ummm how can you?
The only way I could/would do that is by engaging in age-old arguments that frankly insult people's beliefs. I'm not going to do that atm.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Guys, lack of evidence actually is a valid reason to deny something. If you make a claim and want to convince others, you'd have to provide proof.

That said, you are allowed to believe in something you can't prove. Even if what you believe is generally not accepted or even considered silly.

Of course it is a valid reason to deny something. That does not mean it does not exist, though. THAT is the thing I want established.

Originally posted by jinzin


Don't gimme that look, mutha****a. I eat cyber ninja for breakfast!





I'm pretty that is proving a negative. A car can not be yellow if it is red unless you want to delve into philosophical ideas. So like I said, a negative is only impossible to prove unless you want to get extremely technical about it. Going down that technical road kind of sucks though, because eventually you're going to stumble upon the fact that at the end of the day proof and perception is relative, therefore there it's impossible to "prove" anything one way or another.


Perhaps I'm misunderstood your original statement, then? I don't understand how you not wanting to do something = "you can't do that".

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Don't gimme that look, mutha****a. I eat cyber ninja for breakfast!





Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty that is proving a negative. By backtracking, by proving the existence of a tangible positive... yes.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
A car can not be yellow if it is red unless you want to delve into philosophical ideas. So like I said, a negative is only impossible to prove unless you want to get extremely technical about it. Going down that technical road kind of sucks though, because eventually you're going to stumble upon the fact that at the end of the day proof and perception is relative, therefore there it's impossible to "prove" anything one way or another. Well, yeah. I was speaking philosophically. But that's how you build an argument, you can't prove a negative by the merits of proving a negative alone.

You need a tangible to prove that the car is red FIRST before you prove it's not yellow...

With God there's nothing like that for comparison's sake.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Perhaps I'm misunderstood your original statement, then? I don't understand how you not wanting to do something = "you can't do that".
As stated above.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
How, then, was it dealt with? I'm dying to know. If you are talking about 0mega and Sadako, that's outright insulting. They didn't deal with anything.


Exactly how is it not an accurate comparison? It is questioning the very fundamentals of what's needed to prove something at all.

We are not comparing Julius Caesar to God. We are establishing just how hard it is to prove a lot of things. God is an individual, active in a time long ago. You can not prove anyone from that time. You can only be very sure, never absolutely sure.

Not until we invent time-travel.

As stated earlier, there are documented historians from multiple regions, countries, and eras that lend credence to his existence. Coins, sculptures and artwork with his face consistently depicted. Family trees, economic and political consequences, influences and effects that can be traced back directly to him and his leadership role.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that he existed.
You CAN argue otherwise but there-in lies the issue and the reason why it's a poor example to bring up in the first place.

In order to believe Ceaser existed one does not need to suspend their disbelief.
In order to believe that he didn't exist however, one must refute or ignore loads of evidence that suggests that he did thereby suspending disbelief and trading it for what I could only imagine would be consipracy theories.

The exact opposite is true with God.

In order to believe God exists you must suspend disbelief.
But, to believe that he doesn't, will not cause inconsistency with the world you now.

NOW, if you want to continue grasping as if the examples are comparible further issue ensues in this thread, as the entire premise behind "existence of Ceaser = existence of God" is nothing more than a MASSIVE red herring to the challenge this thread presents.
The task calls for people to prove that God EXISTS. You can turn to scripture and stories to imply that he existed in the past and is thus comparible to the evidence that Ceaser existed in the past, but that isn't the issue here.
If God currently exists, right now, then there must be some form of tangible evidence to make that notion more concrete.

If so, then please present it.

If I were arguing on your side I would be looking for more tangible types of evidence.
-"Miracles"
- Bible stories occasionally syncing up with geological and echological historical fact.
- Demon possession
etc.etc...