Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..*snip* (Arq saith: pardon me for cutting your speculations, since I find them of no interest..sorry. )
There will always be plenty of excuses that men invent, and you must agree men have an agenda when they choose to speculate using their science .
And they are speculating.
Yes. It is something uncomfortably at the back of my mind when I argue. Am I really being objective? Am I really giving equal weight to both sides of the argument? I certainly do try, mainly because if I don't, then what I do decide for, has that much less weight and value. My beliefs are that much less worth. I have to test them or what I believe is without validity.
The Faithful, from everything I have seen so far, never do anything like that. They either don't listen to evidence at all or they try to fiddle it to fit what they believe and, if it doesn't (as far too bloody often is the case for their liking ) then, in the bin it goes as "imperfect human wisdom", "science is always getting things wrong", "Logic is merely human invention", "science doesn't know everything" and the good old "I don't care what you say. I still believe..."
I would rather be dead than think like that. But thank you at least for giving me the chance to post a comment on that video. It is rather amusing (posts amused face) that he begins by saying that he doesn't know whether a god exists and cannot prove that a god doesn't exist and "I know that will annoy some people". (another smiley face) because atheists would agree with him. Not knowing (agnosticism) is the basis of atheism (not believing until you do know..and you would not believe the time I spent deciding what to bold, italicise or underline there ).
(I apologize if you have to put with a bloody advert for Bike helmets.(1 ) It's the price we pay for a free Internet
No, the only ones who would be annoyed at that are certain types of theist apologists who rely on claiming that we "Know" or can disprove a god as a way of proving that we are making an untenable claim and therefore everything we say can be safely ignored.
(1) when atheism rules the world, the Internet will be free, funded from taxes (ask me on what ) , and advertising, as as the nearest thing to criminal fraud on the right line of legality, would be banned from it, other than on the relevant sites.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-29-2016 at 07:48 AM..
Reason: 2nd smileythots
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,917,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
How about you use your eyes and you reason? There are very good reasons to disbelieve. There are very good reasons to reject the Gospel(s) Christ (even if a Jesus really did exist). I am rally posting this for others, as I truly do not believe that you are capable of rational assessment of evidence, as distinct from doing what this bod says - starting with what is wanted proof of and looking for anything that can be made to serve as evidence or proof. But you may surprise me
Btw folks, I came across a you tube of Russell Brant (1) claiming that Stephen Fry (in his "rant" to God if he met him) proved God exists. He spoke of a 'Debate' and frankly I doubt that Stephen fry would bother, but it would be interesting if they did, as I would bet my pension that Fry would shred him. I would bet a large sum that I could shred him.
Watch this space, as watching Hushwhisper's posts ceases to be amusing very quickly.
(1) a UK comedian, and apparently a Christian believer.
Apparently reason was discussed at this church. And found wanting.
There are many other things to understand concerning the true age of the earth, but are you looking for excuses not to believe in God ?
Well, the fact is, whether or not a god or gods exist is simply more than any human knows. They (or It) may exist; they may not. I do not default to the belief in deities because there has never been a shred of evidence for their existence which, again, doesn't mean they don't exist in some form.
One thing I think we can say with certainty is that there is absolutely no basis for saying that Yahweh--patron deity of some sects of ancient Hebrews--is the "real" god and all other gods ever written of, worshiped, depicted by humans are false and just made up. That's nonsense.
Quote:
...and you must agree men have an agenda when they choose to speculate using their science .
And they are speculating.
I don't agree. Science is far less speculative than supernatural beings and deity-like entities. Science proceeds from the observable. Gods don't seem to be observable in a sense that science can currently test or measure for them. With our current knowledge and tools, it would be very bad science to set out and try to prove or disprove the existence of gods, and that is not a question any good scientist would even ask.
Well, the fact is, whether or not a god or gods exist is simply more than any human knows. They (or It) may exist; they may not. I do not default to the belief in deities because there has never been a shred of evidence for their existence which, again, doesn't mean they don't exist in some form.
One thing I think we can say with certainty is that there is absolutely no basis for saying that Yahweh--patron deity of some sects of ancient Hebrews--is the "real" god and all other gods ever written of, worshiped, depicted by humans are false and just made up. That's nonsense.
I don't agree. science is far less speculative than supernatural beings and deity-like entities. Science proceeds from the observable. Gods don't seem to be observable in a sense that science can currently test or measure for them. With our current knowledge and tools, it would be very bad science to set out and try to proce or disprove the existence of gods, and that is not a question any good scientist would even ask.
I find it interesting that some think that science is a tool to try to disprove Christianity but never Hinduism or Buddhism.
I just love the cozy feeling of being threatened with eternal torture. The warm fuzzy feeling goes well with my coffee and cookies.
They always posture as if they're doing us a service by warning us, but they can rarely hide the obvious glee with which they anticipate witnessing our endless torture by their loving deity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
) then, in the bin it goes as "imperfect human wisdom", "science is always getting things wrong", "Logic is merely human invention", "science doesn't know everything" and the good old "I don't care what you say. I still believe..."
that he begins by saying that he doesn't know whether a god exists and cannot prove that a god doesn't exist and "I know that will annoy some people". (another smiley face) 
because atheists would agree with him. Not knowing (agnosticism) is the basis of atheism (not believing until you do know..and you would not believe the time I spent deciding what to bold, italicise or underline there 
) , and advertising, as as the nearest thing to criminal fraud on the right line of legality, would be banned from it, other than on the relevant sites.
