Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 266. (Read 845650 times)
Learn the queen's english then, for all are correctly placed..
According to anti-atheist's, athiest's do not believe in god, so atheism cannot be a religion for there is no god or diety, in fact, the general consensus, is that athiest's believe in nothing. In fact atheism and religion are two completely different entitie's, in that one does, the other does'nt.
As for deleting the evidence that the flood could not have happened because the sequoia tree's are still alive, that only proves my evidence is sound, for only the church or it's follower's would like to deceive the world with their deletion of the truth. What I mean is this: Do not do business with religious nut's who would like you to be with them, so they can fuck you over with lies. (majority of members here)
As for deleting the evidence that the flood could not have happened because the sequoia tree's are still alive, that only proves my evidence is sound, for only the church or it's follower's would like to deceive the world with their deletion of the truth. What I mean is this: Do not do business with religious nut's who would like you to be with them, so they can fuck you over with lies. (majority of members here)
That has to be the worst use of apostrophe's Iv'e ever seen in any of these comment's
According to anti-atheist's, athiest's do not believe in god, so atheism cannot be a religion for there is no god or diety, in fact, the general consensus, is that athiest's believe in nothing. In fact atheism and religion are two completely different entitie's, in that one does, the other does'nt.
As for deleting the evidence that the flood could not have happened because the sequoia tree's are still alive, that only proves my evidence is sound, for only the church or it's follower's would like to deceive the world with their deletion of the truth. What I mean is this: Do not do business with religious nut's who would like you to be with them, so they can fuck you over with lies. (majority of members here)
As for deleting the evidence that the flood could not have happened because the sequoia tree's are still alive, that only proves my evidence is sound, for only the church or it's follower's would like to deceive the world with their deletion of the truth. What I mean is this: Do not do business with religious nut's who would like you to be with them, so they can fuck you over with lies. (majority of members here)
Your beliefs cannot be proven true and neither can theirs, which means they are just as valid as yours.
If, within a context, antithetical traits are in-differentiable, then, within the context, these must be identical. Accordingly, an assertion that is no more valid than it is invalid is “identically invalid.”
i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof
Atheists don't need proof, they aren't the ones asserting anything. Atheists reject theist assertions on the grounds they are fallacious, not because atheism asserts a counter position to the theist assertion.
You might as well have said you take an agnostic side on the issue of invisible pink unicorns because neither side has definite proof.
How dishonest of you!
We all know that someone who doesn't take sides, might not be asserting something very much. Somebody who has a belief and who doesn't think about his belief except infrequently, and in a passing way, might simply be holding a belief. But when one asserts that he isn't asserting anything, he is simply a liar, contradicting himself by his non-assertion assertions.
Simply because you want to focus on part of a dictionary definition, this doesn't mean that the other parts don't apply as well.
If you are suggesting something simply because you are trying to show a point, okay. I showed you your point is misleading.
If you actually believe your point, you are warped and dishonest.
By the dictionary definitions of the words "atheism" and "religion," atheism is a religion. Of course, in your case, as it applies to you, atheism is a religion in a different way than a formal religion. A formal religion comes right out and says that it is a religion, expressing the things of religion that make it a religion.
Atheism is a religion that is deceptive because, it doesn't easily allow its followers to understand that they are in a religion by being atheists. Atheism is a religion of dishonesty more than any other religion. If it were a violent religion, it would have Islam beat hands down. Why? Because at least Islam acknowledges with its members that it is a religion.
Many people are agnostics regarding many things at times. But many theists are not agnostic, even in the most general or liberal sense of the word.
No really sure why you keep pressing this Atheism is a religion thing. Think about it, it makes no difference at all if it's a religion or not.
Atheists don't believe in a God and that's that. Putting them in a religious box changes nothing. Your beliefs cannot be proven true and neither can theirs, which means they are just as valid as yours.
What you're saying has no meaning and makes no sense (then again, believing in angels makes no sense either).
"I believe the sky is blue." That statement doesn't have any political or religious meaning, it's a simple statement of what I think.
"I believe the concept of God is bullshit." Again, that has no political or religious meaning, it's what I think.
"I'm an atheist." That is just a faster more efficient way of stating the previous sentence.
"I believe the sky is blue." That statement doesn't have any political or religious meaning, it's a simple statement of what I think.
"I believe the concept of God is bullshit." Again, that has no political or religious meaning, it's what I think.
"I'm an atheist." That is just a faster more efficient way of stating the previous sentence.
Quote
Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof
Atheists don't need proof, they aren't the ones asserting anything. Atheists reject theist assertions on the grounds they are fallacious, not because atheism asserts a counter position to the theist assertion.
You might as well have said you take an agnostic side on the issue of invisible pink unicorns because neither side has definite proof.
How dishonest of you!
We all know that someone who doesn't take sides, might not be asserting something very much. Somebody who has a belief and who doesn't think about his belief except infrequently, and in a passing way, might simply be holding a belief. But when one asserts that he isn't asserting anything, he is simply a liar, contradicting himself by his non-assertion assertions.
Simply because you want to focus on part of a dictionary definition, this doesn't mean that the other parts don't apply as well.
If you are suggesting something simply because you are trying to show a point, okay. I showed you your point is misleading.
If you actually believe your point, you are warped and dishonest.
By the dictionary definitions of the words "atheism" and "religion," atheism is a religion. Of course, in your case, as it applies to you, atheism is a religion in a different way than a formal religion. A formal religion comes right out and says that it is a religion, expressing the things of religion that make it a religion.
Atheism is a religion that is deceptive because, it doesn't easily allow its followers to understand that they are in a religion by being atheists. Atheism is a religion of dishonesty more than any other religion. If it were a violent religion, it would have Islam beat hands down. Why? Because at least Islam acknowledges with its members that it is a religion.
Many people are agnostics regarding many things at times. But many theists are not agnostic, even in the most general or liberal sense of the word.
i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof
Atheists don't need proof, they aren't the ones asserting anything. Atheists reject theist assertions on the grounds they are fallacious, not because atheism asserts a counter position to the theist assertion.
You might as well have said you take an agnostic side on the issue of invisible pink unicorns because neither side has definite proof.
i take an agnostic stance, neither side has definite proof
I have no problem with people being "confused victims", as long as they keep their intolerant beliefs to themselves. Once they start to display their intolerance of things due to their religious beliefs, that's when we have problems. Therefore, BADecker is a "bad guy"(And a pretty dumb one at that, in fact the absolute stupidest man I've ever met online so far is BADecker).
God never limits your investigation into all facets of the Truth.
BADecker calls my God the Devil; however, he is no better-informed than anyone else who has not thoroughly read even a chapter of the Phoenix Journals and concludes (in ignorance) that the Journals were NOT produced by God's messenger "GCH".
Since neither parties offer any backing to their claims, their claims can be dismissed.
I have provided this thread with many resources, but I cannot do the reading for the student.
He ("God") went forth and has prepared safe passage and “a place” for each of you who would come within His shelter. The choice is individual for force is not of God and you have free-will for all choices.
What if he starts questioning your actions instead of your faith and shows you videos projected on a cloud of you touching yourself while sniffing a pair of dirty panties? Do you think he would believe that was ok or would he send you to hell?
I believe the reasoning is such that, as long as you weren't hurting anyone and had lived as a 'good' person, his religious laws about not masturbating etc. wouldn't apply because, as had been understood by him [
], he'd done a pretty shitty job in making it clear what 'He' wanted and who he was. 'He' isn't exactly unambiguous when it comes to 'Holy' texts'n'shit(tm).The understanding of your actions is for YOU to learn from.
For example, if you reject this information that I am about to present, it is good to ask yourself: WHY?
This is the most unambiguously prescriptive text ever written on this subject; it is obviously coming from God, so that makes it one of the most important things you will ever read.
If God's written understanding is not important enough for you to read through, then it is good to ask yourself: WHY?
PHOENIX OPERATOR-OWNER MANUAL
Again, you have nothing to lose by gaining TRUTH and insight—but you do have everything to lose in the physical and soul realms by remaining ignorant at the hands of the deceivers who would hide Truth from your eyes and ears.
The bible has already been disproven.
1) Humans do not have complete free-will
2) "God" in the bible has been shown to be largely malevolent(evil) instead of benevolent(good), especially in the Old Testament. For instance, "God" had killed over a 2million people according to the bible, while "Satan" had killed just 10 indirectly through god(God gave him permission to do it; Job's family).
1) Humans do not have complete free-will
2) "God" in the bible has been shown to be largely malevolent(evil) instead of benevolent(good), especially in the Old Testament. For instance, "God" had killed over a 2million people according to the bible, while "Satan" had killed just 10 indirectly through god(God gave him permission to do it; Job's family).
To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway, it would create lots of very very very angry people.
Given that theism has already been debunked, in that it is *no* different to just making something up and declaring it to be true, I think it is pretty apparent that people often prefer to shut out intellectual honesty in order to soothe their anxieties about not being 'special' to an invisible super-being.
Carl Sagan said it best:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Quote
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
On the other hand,
Quote
There is nothing that explains the existence of the universe and all the marvels that are in it. We have observation of it, but no explanation for it or how it came into being.
Science is dribbles of knowledge combined with a whole lot of science fiction. Religion points at Something that might have created the world, but still has no understandable way that it could have been done.
Since we don't know how or where it all came from, and since we don't have a clue really how to make any of it ourselves, everything is a miracle. It all exists, but other than the fact that we have become used to and comfortable with its existence, the whole universe is a complete miracle.
Science is dribbles of knowledge combined with a whole lot of science fiction. Religion points at Something that might have created the world, but still has no understandable way that it could have been done.
Since we don't know how or where it all came from, and since we don't have a clue really how to make any of it ourselves, everything is a miracle. It all exists, but other than the fact that we have become used to and comfortable with its existence, the whole universe is a complete miracle.
To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway, it would create lots of very very very angry people.
Given that theism has already been debunked, in that it is *no* different to just making something up and declaring it to be true, I think it is pretty apparent that people often prefer to shut out intellectual honesty in order to soothe their anxieties about not being 'special' to an invisible super-being.
Carl Sagan said it best:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
Quote
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed.
I don't think that is a reasonable assertion to make.
Religion is borne of ignorance and a need to imagine the answers to the questions of life, the universe and everything. Since the human species has begun to explore its reality by way of the scientific method of observation, measurement and testing, we have rapidly learned to better understand the cause-and-effect action/reaction processes that make up our universe and are growing increasingly aware of the fact that 'god did it' isn't knowledge of any kind.
Trouble I have with this, is science can never disprove God may exist. It's impossible to do.
Possibly science can disprove religion(s), such as the bible. But that's a different thing than disproving God.
To be fair if science can eventually prove the bible completely false, I wouldn't want to be around anyway, it would create lots of very very very angry people.
People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed.
I don't think that is a reasonable assertion to make.
Religion is borne of ignorance and a need to imagine the answers to the questions of life, the universe and everything. Since the human species has begun to explore its reality by way of the scientific method of observation, measurement and testing, we have rapidly learned to better understand the cause-and-effect action/reaction processes that make up our universe and are growing increasingly aware of the fact that 'god did it' isn't knowledge of any kind.
That atheism is spreading rapidly in educated cultures tells you that, in time, it will be become harder and harder for adults to deny their children the right to learn critical thinking skills and question what they are told.
In the meantime we are witnessing the writhing and twitching dying of global religions as they lose hold of those able to think for themselves, leaving only the fundamentalist-level militant theists who will continue to disgust the 'moderates' to the degree that they, too, cannot bring themselves to remain part of such a toxic and dysfunctional group-think.
The more the fundamentalists commit atrocities across the world, the quicker they are bringing about the end of their own religions.
In time functional reasoning will see theism committed to the annals of history and held up as examples of toxic dysfunction which contributed to neurological and psychological disorders driving people to commit criminal and harmful acts against each other.
And how do you know how god works?
BADecker doesn't, nobody does. People that claim they do are lying.There is no god or jeebus.
How would you possibly know that?It's 2015, I thought we were beyond this dark ages crap by now.
People have believed in a God, not necessarily the same God, for millions of years man has been on the planet and they will believe until every last human is destroyed.We think of the main religions now, such as Christianity, as very old ancient religions. But in reality, they are just brand new ones in the timeline of human existence.
How many have existed and forgotten in the millions of years before Christianity was invented? Hundreds, Thousands? Who knows.
If an "all loving god" wants to send me to hell for playing with myself, ok. I would be kind of embarassed if he projected it on a cloud though.
Do you value your life? If playing with yourself is fun, you must place some value on your life, right?
God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. However, because He controls everything, He will be the One Who sends to Hell those who are going there. But He doesn't do it the way that you think. Here's how He does it.
God gives every person the freedom to select salvation or not... one way or another. Then God does what the person asks for when the person makes his own selection.
Secure salvation for yourself. Believe in the forgiveness that God offers through Jesus. Learn about it by reading the New Testament in the Bible first... then the Old Testament. Doing this will give God the tools to work salvation in you. Don't worry about the other people.
Everyone who reads this post, get the Bible into yourself, in faith, so that God can secure your salvation for you, by working faith in your heart through the words you read.
If he loved us so much, why would he put us in spiritual peril to begin with? And how do you know how god works? There is no god or jeebus. It's 2015, I thought we were beyond this dark ages crap by now.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
And
Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.
And
Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.
If an "all loving god" wants to send me to hell for playing with myself, ok. I would be kind of embarassed if he projected it on a cloud though.
Do you value your life? If playing with yourself is fun, you must place some value on your life, right?
God doesn't want anyone to go to Hell. However, because He controls everything, He will be the One Who sends to Hell those who are going there. But He doesn't do it the way that you think. Here's how He does it.
God gives every person the freedom to select salvation or not... one way or another. Then God does what the person asks for when the person makes his own selection.
Secure salvation for yourself. Believe in the forgiveness that God offers through Jesus. Learn about it by reading the New Testament in the Bible first... then the Old Testament. Doing this will give God the tools to work salvation in you. Don't worry about the other people.
Everyone who reads this post, get the Bible into yourself, in faith, so that God can secure your salvation for you, by working faith in your heart through the words you read.
Jump to: