oh, you poor numpty, don't understand about the burden of proof. don't teach you that in the bible, do they. but your still denying, dodging.
God is Only a Theory
- Thread starter hrmwrm
- Start date
you're right, i don't explain myths. they make no sense to why one would follow such nonsense. that's what you're here trying to do, and failing. just because you are ignorant to anything outside of your beliefs doesn't make me ignorant about yours. i've shown you many false hoods that are verifiable. and you continue to make shit up.
like pure dna. try learning a little science. or stars falling from the sky. take a look in a telescope. there's a lot of shit out there beyond the moon. and none of the stars will EVER fall from the sky. it's impossible.
quote makes it sound like god makes what he wants, as you stated. even the wicked. sounds like dodge/deny and chase the tail.
i have nothing to hide. no dark secrets. it just cuts to the point of how ridiculous religion is. i could choose any criminal activity to make my point, but it's just rampant in religion as much or more than in regular society. but it makes no sense, because your all god fearing people. the criminals are those that don't believe, right?
except, that's not how it is.
and problem with priests is some married men are pedophiles too. as i said, hire only gays and they'll just rape each other. the catholics can keep their masquerade of celibacy.
and time to stop protecting the pedophiles too. we'll have to see what happens over the baptist church charges of late too. there's some shit been going on for years too.
wtf is absurd about it. gays aren't pedophiles. and it's you who speaks circular. if it isn't prewrapped from some apologist or out of your bible, you have no answer.
koran, which isn't as old. to prove the bible and jesus? that's not circular? chasing your tail?
you've lived a pretty brainwashed life if you beleive all gays are pedophiles. that would be like saying all priests are pedophiles. not to say there aren't gay pedophiles. or pedophile priests.
you sound like a friend i had from school who's parents had to rescue him from a cult and get him deprogrammed. he was never the same.
i'm not talking of how many or what colour they were. just the percentage that carries on in the population today. juries not out on that.
and do you believe any of those other myths? there is no evidence for an earth wide flood. there is evidence of local flooding, which would be the bais for a local flood myth, that all myths would carry. there also many from around the world that don't have flood myths.
but then why would there be so many flood myths if the story of noah is true? any other myth should have died with their believers in the flood and noahs offspring brought only 1 forward. yet there's now 3 abraham myths, in a couple thousand flavours, and about 3-4 thousand more in ancient history both in and out of the middle east.
you're as much an atheist as me, i just went 1 farther.
really? i'm aware of gene expression, and it in no way accounts for the huge differentiation seen around the world.
i'm talking of genetic code. expression doesn't change whats read as code. just what genes are used for protein coding.
i follow science. as i said about the denisovan genes. it's what gave the tibetans the genes for high altitude living. while east asians have them, not all express them.
not all are capable of living with tibetans. but after spending time at high altitude, their expression might change and they could adapt.
but it does not alter your actual dna. and it doesn't account for denisovan nor neanderthal dna added to our mix.
but good of you to actually venture out and look at some science to create an argument.
actually, i was just having a little fun. and i'm not dodging anything yet again. you are still using the bible to prove god. which is like saying the bhagavad gita proves krishna. or the satanic bible proves satan. or harry potter proves voldemort. THAT'S why this thread continues. you dodge/twist /shift.
i'm still waiting for the great materialization to happen so shag can have his wish and delve into philosophy.
too bad philosophical truths aren't truths til proven. but we'll delve into that after the great materialization.
Last edited:
but it's using one myth to back up another. the quoran was also written later. nothing was written of jesus IN HIS DAY.
Did Jesus Exist? | American Atheists
yeah, i know. it's from an atheist site. but it's not like there are a lot of places to have this sort of thing. challenge yourself and give it a read. you will actually learn what the burden of proof is too.
well, lets bring different quotes from different contexts, shall we? seriously?
one is about diversity, and one was about structure. one is about mans diversity of just his dna, and one statement for the arguement of man being special over animals.
talk of twist and dodge, chasing tails.
we all have dna, mans is no different in structure. dna being the basis of ALL life.
mans not dust and breath.
like the bible says.still proves what? myth proving myth?
04_Sport_LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Well... I skimmed the article in your link. Sure you didn't write it... Because it has as many twists and false interpolations in it... As you have spouted on here. Obviously the author is no more familiar with the Bible than you are. There is a BIG difference between reading written material... And understanding it in proper context.
To quote:. "Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus – "
This is a completely false statement by the author... Based on lack of understanding and ignorance, (from lack of proper reading and research).
To clarify: The Bible states in the Old Testament that the Messiah, (Jesus), will come from the line of King David. That being said... The reason for 2 different genealogies is that one shows the lineage of Joseph back to King David... And the other genealogy shows the lineage of Mary back to King David. And before you start spouting something about being inbred... They were something like 15th cousins.
AND.... Before you point out that, (supposedly), God caused Mary to be pregnant... The idea was that BOTH of Jesus' earthly parents were from the line of King David.
Again to the link you provided... The author contests the validity of the Gospels based on the authorship and timline of when they were written. Well here's a link that provides earlier dates for the writing of the Gospels, than what your link states.
When Were the Four Gospels Written?
As far as the rest of your posts... You missed some of the points I made, (ignored intentionally?), ...and the rest of them were nothing but Logorrhea.
The burden of proof is STILL on you... Because you have NOT proven that God is only a theory. This is YOUR "6ft bunny with razor sharp teeth" .
To quote:. "Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus – "
This is a completely false statement by the author... Based on lack of understanding and ignorance, (from lack of proper reading and research).
To clarify: The Bible states in the Old Testament that the Messiah, (Jesus), will come from the line of King David. That being said... The reason for 2 different genealogies is that one shows the lineage of Joseph back to King David... And the other genealogy shows the lineage of Mary back to King David. And before you start spouting something about being inbred... They were something like 15th cousins.
AND.... Before you point out that, (supposedly), God caused Mary to be pregnant... The idea was that BOTH of Jesus' earthly parents were from the line of King David.
Again to the link you provided... The author contests the validity of the Gospels based on the authorship and timline of when they were written. Well here's a link that provides earlier dates for the writing of the Gospels, than what your link states.
When Were the Four Gospels Written?
As far as the rest of your posts... You missed some of the points I made, (ignored intentionally?), ...and the rest of them were nothing but Logorrhea.
The burden of proof is STILL on you... Because you have NOT proven that God is only a theory. This is YOUR "6ft bunny with razor sharp teeth" .
Last edited:
AmsterDutch
Dedicated LVC Member
In discussing the book, British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking told ABC News: “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
Yes this brilliant man who I admired and respected for all he did with the studies and knowledge he shared in his life even though a devout atheist said “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist." I am not leaving out the rest of his statement.... but the sentence I put in BOLD type says volumes
AmsterDutch
Dedicated LVC Member
"The difference between the spiritual and the soulish is crystal clear. The spiritual depends utterly upon God, fully satisfied with what God has given; the soulish steers clear of God and covets what God has not conferred, especially “knowledge.” Watchman Nee
AmsterDutch
Dedicated LVC Member
This says it all!
"What you will see in the comments to both posts from Monday, and you may have experienced if you’ve dialogued with staunch atheists, is that Myers and atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason. As G.K. Chesterton famously pointed out:
Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. [...]
Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion…To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.
If you try to evangelize to these folks through reason alone, your head will feel like it’s going to split too. For every point you make in the case for Christianity, there will be a counterpoint, and then you’ll have a counterpoint to their counterpoint, and this will go on and on until it spirals back to where it began when they say “BUT I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD!” They’ll fancy themselves to be intellectual woodchippers (to borrow Myers’ analogy), and you’ll feel like you’re trapped in some macabre version of Who’s on First...And that’s when you see that people simply cannot reason their way into faith."
"What you will see in the comments to both posts from Monday, and you may have experienced if you’ve dialogued with staunch atheists, is that Myers and atheists like him are trapped in a prison of reason. As G.K. Chesterton famously pointed out:
Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination. [...]
Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion…To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.
If you try to evangelize to these folks through reason alone, your head will feel like it’s going to split too. For every point you make in the case for Christianity, there will be a counterpoint, and then you’ll have a counterpoint to their counterpoint, and this will go on and on until it spirals back to where it began when they say “BUT I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD!” They’ll fancy themselves to be intellectual woodchippers (to borrow Myers’ analogy), and you’ll feel like you’re trapped in some macabre version of Who’s on First...And that’s when you see that people simply cannot reason their way into faith."
AmsterDutch
Dedicated LVC Member
I said it before and say it one last time ...each person is given a measure of faith by God ...I never said each person is equally given a measure of faith...no my friends ...we are each given by God our own measure of faith...so be forever grateful if you have a abundance of faith ...its more precious than anything in the heavens and earth
no, it's you can't disprove god.
but that's a scientific fact.
that's why science relys on the burden of proof. along with our laws.
you know. evidence.
fact. reality.
Science also relies on and is preceded by philosophy.
Metaphysics. Epistemology.
You know, truth.
BTW, you come up with any proof for your assumption of materialism & empiricism as the only standard of judgement? Or you still acting in blind faith while trying to assume away any inconvenient truths and pretending to be rational?
Last edited:
you can prove god to an atheist by bringing him down and showing him around.
that's PROVING something.
still just got a book from the stoneage.
philsophy brings alot of questions to ask.
theology is it's own brand of philosophy as well.
which seeks to prove itself like the bible through words, rather than evidence.
science relies on evidence.
so, what evidence do you have?
theology will always be stuck in theology, never science.
no amount of belief or faith makes fact.
that's PROVING something.
still just got a book from the stoneage.
philsophy brings alot of questions to ask.
theology is it's own brand of philosophy as well.
which seeks to prove itself like the bible through words, rather than evidence.
science relies on evidence.
so, what evidence do you have?
theology will always be stuck in theology, never science.
no amount of belief or faith makes fact.
Last edited:
There is nothing theological in any argument I have provided.
Again, you have to prove why empiricism ("evidence") is the rational standard of judgement on this matter. The matter is, first and foremost, a logical one. And you are simply trying to assume the most convenient (empirical) standard of judgement. In fact, the very connection between science and evidence is a logical one. Yet, you are rejecting logic in taking on blind faith that evidence should be the standard of judgement on the question of if there is a god. In short, you are rejecting scientific thinking and principles in your irrational appeal to science.
We've been dancing this dance for years, hrmwrm. It isn't as if you are ignorant of this critique. Yet all you ever do is assume the issue away. You can make ANY view work if you just assume away any inconvenient truth.