What did God do on the planet today? (consciousness, atheist, quote)

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Umm, look around you for proof.

That you do not understand the world around you and how it works is not a reason to invoke 'magic'.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by Rafius

So as we keep saying. You CLAIM to have evidence yet you cannot produce it. Just as I thought.

Yep, and close minded atheists will continue to reject it. That doesn't mean there is no evidence.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Aaaaaaahahahaha!! So evolution is true...except when it contradicts the mythological stories of desert goat-herds...and then it's false.

Sorry, but small mutations that DO NOT completely change a creation into something completely different
doesn't prove one freaking iota that God is a dead and I came from a beast. Sure a virus mutates, but guess what, it's still a virus.

Originally Posted by Rafius

To be honest, I don't think you even understand what the ToE even says. But lets put it to the test....
Explain the general idea of DNA genome mapping and how it is used to track the genotypic background of a modern species?
[font=&quot]
then.....

Explain three types of tRNA or DNA transcription errors in mitosis.

Off you go.

Am I suppose to be impressed here? I'm not.

Originally Posted by Rafius

There is plenty of proof actually. Their lifestyles prove it.

Their lifestyles only prove that they had limited resources and made the best of it. That doesn't prove that these people were ignorant or stupid.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Sorry. The personal 'testimony' of believers is not evidence. We seek verifiable and objective evidence not 'I feel it in my heart' is neither objective nor verifiable.

Prime example. That's like saying you have video tape evidence of the murder taking place, but that's not good enough because you can't test it in a lab. Personal testimony most certainly is used as evidence in a court of law. Why isn't it good enough for you? The video shows supernatural events occurring in real time. There's your evidence. But the reality is you have to find ways to disqualify it because that would destroy your illusion that there is no God.

Originally Posted by Rafius

The same way that they need furry coats and we don't. You really need to understand that which you are trying to demolish. Failure to do so just makes you look silly.

It would be nice to meet just one just ONE atheist who didn't have to resort to the belittling tactic here.

Originally Posted by Rafius

The point was that one invariably takes on the religious beliefs of the parents and the predominant religion of the country. Westerners become Christians, Arabs become Muslims, Indians become Hindus, Chinese become Shintoist/Buddhists ...etc. The point was never about people changing religions. It was you that brought that argument in.

Then your point really doesn't serve to invalidate Christianity at all.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Some do, many don't. Many end up back in prison. That's why we find that the greatest number of theists in prisons are Christians.

There's a difference between saying you believe in God vs living a born again sold out to God Christian life. A Christian in fellowship with God will naturally detest sin.

Originally Posted by Rafius

It's mythology...just like all the religions that have come and gone before yours. Once upon a time the whole of Greece believed in many gods and believed them to be just as real as you believe yours is. The Romans the same. The Egyptian and Mesopotamians all had their gods...but where are they now? Well they are languishing on dusty shelves label 'Mythology'...and that is EXACTLY where your god will end up.

Because you said so? Again, the Bible has much more in common with texts of recorded history than myths and legends. The Bible gives intimidate detail about other cultures any time that the Israelities intersect with them. Names, places, events, even genealogies. It contains prophecies and spiritual truths and the "heroes" of the Bible are almost never shown as heroic. They are shown in all their ugly sinful truth. Everyone fails God even beloved King David. What more do you want?

Originally Posted by Rafius

Are the things experienced by Hindus a figment of their imagination, the things experienced by the followers of other gods a figment of their imagination? What evidence do you have to lead us to the conclusion that your 'imagination' is reliable but not theirs?

You might find this surprising, but I believe people of these other faiths probably do have supernatural experiences so it is real to them. Unfortunately, they are provided by the demonic realm.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Mass hysteria is not uncommon. When 'War of The Worlds' was broadcast on American radio, Americans thought it was real and mass panic ensued.

This just shows how fear is a powerful illogical emotion. It is Satan's primary weapon against humanity. Or maybe natural selection should have weeded it out.

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Yep, and close minded atheists will continue to reject it. That doesn't mean there is no evidence.

We are still waiting to see this evidence.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Sorry, but small mutations that DO NOT completely change a creation into something completely different
doesn't prove one freaking iota that God is a dead and I came from a beast. Sure a virus mutates, but guess what, it's still a virus.

Who as talking about a virus? It was a bacteria. In a few weeks a bacteria mutated to become more resistant to a toxin. Give it a million years and you won't recognize it! In fact, give a dog a few million years and you won't recognize it nor will it be able to interbreed with a wolf. Oh wait - a dog (some breeds) can't interbreed with a wolf already! In fact, there are some dog breeds that cannot interbreed with some other dog breeds.

But do you know this, a human can interbreed with a chimpanzee! The offspring would be sterile though, just a like a mule is. A horse and a zebra can interbreed but once again, the offspring are sterile. Lion and tiger .....

So as you were saying?

[303Guy]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Umm, look around you for proof.

OK, I've looked and guess what? I found plenty of proof - for evolution!

It's all around us, can't you see it? It's so obvious.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Yep, and close minded atheists will continue to reject it.

How can we reject something you have NOT presented? Let alone "continue" to reject it.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

That doesn't mean there is no evidence.

Yet the fact you have provided not little, but NO, evidence is strongly suggestive you simply do not have any.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Personal testimony most certainly is used as evidence in a court of law.

To a point, but like many subjects you display how little you know about law. Personal Testimony is useful to a point but it need to be corroborated by other facts.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

It would be nice to meet just one just ONE atheist who didn't have to resort to the belittling tactic here.

There are many. You simply ignore them because they do not fit into your "arrogant atheists" narrative. So you only reply to the posts of the people who fit that narrative, and ignore the rest so they do not destroy your narrative.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Yep, and close minded atheists will continue to reject it. That doesn't mean there is no evidence.

There you go again. Day after day you come here proclaiming that there is 'evidence' and day after day you fail to produce the evidence that you consistently claim exists. If it exists then SHOW IT.

Sorry, but small mutations that DO NOT completely change a creation into something completely different

Now you just show your ignorance of evolution because small mutations DO change one species into another.

Sure a virus mutates, but guess what, it's still a virus.

You mean bacteria right? Yes it is still a bacteria but the important thing is that it is a different species...and that is how evolution works, not in the way that you imagine or want it to work - in that a cat goes to sleep one night and wakes up in the morning as a dog.

Am I suppose to be impressed here?

No, you are supposed to answer the questions so that we can ascertain whether or not you actually understand even the bog-standard basics of what you are insisting is false.. Please answer the questions in your own word.

Their lifestyles only prove that they had limited resources and made the best of it. That doesn't prove that these people were ignorant or stupid.

My argument is that people today are far more intelligent than people were then. Compared to today they were staggeringly ignorant.

Prime example. That's like saying you have video tape evidence of the murder taking place, but that's not good enough because you can't test it in a lab.

It's not good enough because it can be 'doctored'. People are not convicted on such evidence alone.

Personal testimony most certainly is used as evidence in a court of law.

Of course...but it must have supporting evidence. If I personally testify that you stole my wallet, do you think that the court of law will accept my personal say-so, or will they ask me to prove my case? Look at it another way. Would you be happy to be sentenced to life imprisonment for murder on no other evidence other than my personal testimony that I saw you do it? Try answering these questions rather than ignoring them.

Why isn't it good enough for you?

It's not good enough for me in the same way that videos of people who believe in the existence of Bigfoot claim to have seen or had personal experiences with Bigfoot. It's not good enough for me in the same way that videos of people who believe in the existence of leprechauns claim to have seen or had personal experiences with leprechauns.

The video shows supernatural events occurring in real time. There's your evidence.

what does? The link you posted? No it doesn't. It does absolutely nothing of the kind. It shows people that have been indoctrinated into believing 2000 year old superstitions.

....the reality is you have to find ways to disqualify it because that would destroy your illusion that there is no God.

It is for you to prove that there is. In the absence of not one iota of objective, verifiable evidence for your god then the default position should be that your god does not exist.

It would be nice to meet just one just ONE atheist who didn't have to resort to the belittling tactic here.

It isn't belittling tactics, it is simply stating a fact. When you try to dismiss something whilst not understanding even the basic concepts of what you are trying to dismiss, as is the case with you and evolution, it DOES make you look silly...as well as uninformed and ignorant. That's just the way it is I'm afraid and if you don't want that then make the effort to understand the subject that you are trying so desperately to dismiss.

Then your point really doesn't serve to invalidate Christianity at all.

It wasn't meant to! My point was to show that religion has more to do with geography than truth in that we usually take on the predominant religion of the country we were born in or the religious beliefs of our parents.

There's a difference between saying you believe in God vs living a born again sold out to God Christian life. A Christian in fellowship with God will naturally detest sin.

The old 'real Christian' nonsense again.

Because you said so?

No, not at all. It's because verifiable, recorded history says so. History shows that humans have believed in gods for aeons and as each civilisation passed on...so did the gods they believed in pass on...to be replaced by the gods of the civilisations that came after. The same will eventually happen to your god too.

Again, the Bible has much more in common with texts of recorded history than myths and legends.

...and?? How does that prove that ALL the Bible is true? Because your Bible mentions Egypt, it doesn't follow that talking donkeys and snakes exist or that there was a guy called Noah who managed to get two each of every species on the planet into a boat preceding a flood that drowned the world.

The Bible gives intimidate detail about other cultures any time that the Israelities intersect with them.

So what. A.Conan Doyle gave intimate details about London in his Sherlock Holmes books. That doesn't mean that Sherlock Holmes was a real character. Writers of fiction do it all the time. London exists. Baker Street exists. Even 221B exists, it is a real house where real people live today. So are we to assume that Sherlock Holmes was a real, living, breathing person? Of course no, and it works the same way for your Bible.

Names, places, events, even genealogies.

So what! It doesn't mean that your god exists any more than the names, places, events and genealogies in the holy books of other religions mean that their gods exist

It contains prophecies...

Not one of which has come true.

..and spiritual truths...

as do the holy books of other religions. There is NOTHING unique about your Bible. Like the holy books of other religions, it is a collection of myths and stories from a by-gone age.

...and the "heroes" of the Bible are almost never shown as heroic. They are shown in all their ugly sinful truth. Everyone fails God even beloved King David.

That doesn't indicate truth.

What more do you want?

We want what we keep asking you for and which you consistently FAIL to provide. OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE evidence. Your claims that...'It says so in the Bible so it must be true'...are as much use to use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

You might find this surprising, but I believe people of these other faiths probably do have supernatural experiences so it is real to them. Unfortunately, they are provided by the demonic realm.

What a surprise! Another Christian claiming that 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong.'

This just shows how fear is a powerful illogical emotion.

Indeed it does ...and it is nowhere more prevalent than it is in religion.

It is Satan's primary weapon against humanity.

No, it is the Church' natural weapon against enlightenment and education.

Or maybe natural selection should have weeded it out.

It is. As people become more educated and enlightened, superstitious beliefs retreat.

[overcastg4]

Originally Posted by Rafius

There you go again. Day after day you come here proclaiming that there is 'evidence' and day after day you fail to produce the evidence that you consistently claim exists. If it exists then SHOW IT.

"There you go again. Day after day you come here proclaiming that there is 'evidence' and day after day [your practices] fail to produce the evidence [to my life] that [your life] consistently claim exists. If it exists then SHOW IT [to my life]."

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by overcastg4

"There you go again. Day after day you come here proclaiming that there is 'evidence' and day after day [your practices] fail to produce the evidence [to my life] that [your life] consistently claim exists. If it exists then SHOW IT [to my life]."

Huh?? Interpreter please!

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by Rafius

There you go again. Day after day you come here proclaiming that there is 'evidence' and day after day you fail to produce the evidence that you consistently claim exists. If it exists then SHOW IT.

I did present it. I gave you a video link. That's evidence. I went to the effort to present it. Now just because you reject it doesn't mean I didn't make an effort to present evidence.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Now you just show your ignorance of evolution because small mutations DO change one species into another.

Yeah we just gotta wait millions of years to see it happen. How convenient that you get to claim something as fact when there is no way to see it actually occur.

Originally Posted by Rafius

You mean bacteria right? Yes it is still a bacteria but the important thing is that it is a different species...and that is how evolution works, not in the way that you imagine or want it to work - in that a cat goes to sleep one night and wakes up in the morning as a dog.

But that's what you want us to believe. That we transform from something completely different over millions of years.

Originally Posted by Rafius

No, you are supposed to answer the questions so that we can ascertain whether or not you actually understand even the bog-standard basics of what you are insisting is false.. Please answer the questions in your own word.

That's the beauty of being a Christian. We are not slaves to the need of self pride. I have no problem admitting that I don't know a whole lot in the realm of science so your efforts to intimidate me fall to the ground. But I don't need a science degree to understand that evolution does not answer everything and has been gaping holes of logic.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Of course...but it must have supporting evidence. If I personally testify that you stole my wallet, do you think that the court of law will accept my personal say-so, or will they ask me to prove my case? Look at it another way. Would you be happy to be sentenced to life imprisonment for murder on no other evidence other than my personal testimony that I saw you do it? Try answering these questions rather than ignoring them.

I'm not sure you are right there. I think people can and are convicted based only on personal testimony and even more so if thousands of people are testifying the same thing. Testimony is a form of evidence.
Here is one proof to support my statement:

A common misconception in rape cases is that independent evidence, such as a medical report or rape kit, must support the allegation of the complaining witness. Sadly, that is not the case. Juries are instructed that corroboration is not necessary and that they can convict based on testimony alone. Prosecutors often play on juries’ emotions and sympathy for the “victim,” especially in weak cases or cases involving minors. Sex crimes are vastly different than other criminal charges because the outcomes can be affected by false allegations and emotionalism.

can I be convicted on witness testimony alone Archives - Austin Legal Services, PLC

Originally Posted by Rafius

It's not good enough for me in the same way that videos of people who believe in the existence of Bigfoot claim to have seen or had personal experiences with Bigfoot. It's not good enough for me in the same way that videos of people who believe in the existence of leprechauns claim to have seen or had personal experiences with leprechauns.

Then that's your problem. For some people, it is good enough. So your standards for accepting evidence are personal. And if you have a personal bias against Christianity, those standards most likely are impossible to achieve.

Originally Posted by Rafius

what does? The link you posted? No it doesn't. It does absolutely nothing of the kind. It shows people that have been indoctrinated into believing 2000 year old superstitions.

Thank you for demonstrating your unfairness. YOu haven't even watched the video and yet automatically dismiss it.

Originally Posted by Rafius

It isn't belittling tactics, it is simply stating a fact. When you try to dismiss something whilst not understanding even the basic concepts of what you are trying to dismiss, as is the case with you and evolution, it DOES make you look silly...as well as uninformed and ignorant. That's just the way it is I'm afraid and if you don't want that then make the effort to understand the subject that you are trying so desperately to dismiss.

No, it is a comment that serves NO purpose in the discussion. Absolutely not. It doesn't matter if you think I'm silly or a fruitcake. Your personal opinion about my character should never be entered into the discussion.

Originally Posted by Rafius

.

...and?? How does that prove that ALL the Bible is true? Because your Bible mentions Egypt, it doesn't follow that talking donkeys and snakes exist or that there was a guy called Noah who managed to get two each of every species on the planet into a boat preceding a flood that drowned the world.

Newsflash, it is impossible to prove that ANY historical event in that era really did take place beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I'm sure you have no problem accepting without question the histories of other cultures or believing that Alexander the Great once existed.

Originally Posted by Rafius

.

We want what we keep asking you for and which you consistently FAIL to provide. OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE evidence. Your claims that...'It says so in the Bible so it must be true'...are as much use to use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

Then you tell me in specific detail example of evidence that you would accept. Obviously video isn't good enough for you. What would it take to convince you? I only recall one time getting an honest answer. The atheist admited that it would take God coming down to earth and shooting laser beams from his eyes and melting a steel structure. Who knows, maybe that isn't evidence enough for you.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I did present it. I gave you a video link. That's evidence. I went to the effort to present it. Now just because you reject it doesn't mean I didn't make an effort to present evidence.

The link brought up a video that showed Christians praying and exclaiming how wonderful their lives were since 'finding Jesus.' That proves nothing.

Yeah we just gotta wait millions of years to see it happen.

In most cases yes. But you could look up Dr Richard Lenski's experiments that show evolution taking place over decades. Lenski has shown, via DNA genome mapping that a bacterial genome changed by a chance mutation and resulted in a new bacterial genome. The new one was able to utilize a substrate material, a food to you, that the parent bacterium could not utilize. Much as you may not like it, if you change that digestive and food utilization ability, you thus have a new species. Evolution in action in our own life time and before our very eyes.

Your problem is the same one that most deniers of evolution stumble on, in that you ask us to show evolution doing something that evolution does not do i.e demonstrate a cat turning into a dog overnight or show me a fossil that is half fish and half bird. Well you're not going to find such things old chap, simply because the don't exist and nor does evolution say they exist.

Look, try this from an old mate who once frequented these boards.


We all can agree (save for the severely colour blind) that this text is red.

We can also similarly agree that this text is blue.

If we have red text and decide to change it by just a small amount, the change might be barely noticeable, but still a very small change. This, we will call our micro-evolution. Every word up to now can be considered red, with very minute changes in the hue. If I keep typing long enough, would anyone be able to tell me, just by looking, at which word or letter is this post no longer red, but actually purple or blue? All this micro-evolution keeps occurring in the text, with its tiny changes in hue, but ultimately, I end up with a completely different colour. It's actually the difference between what one would consider red and what one would consider purple (or a whole new species, in this analogy) which is macro-evolution. See, the common misunderstanding is, that macro-evolution means a dog being a direct offspring of some other different canine-like species, or even more stupidly, a cat coming from a dog. Well, that's not what macro-evolution is. There is really only one distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and it's the same distinction between their prefixes: micro and macro. Just like if something is microscopic or if something is macroscopic. Microscopic usually requires a microscope to see it because it's so small, but the macroscopic are things large enough to be seen by the common human eye. However, things of both size are completely visible and plainly exist, and there are many things in this universe between both general sizes. So as you read this, can you tell me the first word here that is blue, and not purple? After all, every change in colour since the first word in this paragraph has only micro-evolved from the colour next to it, but we've managed to macro-evolve through 2 colours. This, hopefully, will illustrate how it's illogical to believe that macro-evolution doesn't happen, even given time for enough micro-evolution to occur.

So tell me -- what was the first purple word in the block of text above? What's the first blue word? Remember, if macro-evolution simply cannot happen then you're saying the words you are reading are still red.


Do you get it now??

How convenient that you get to claim something as fact when there is no way to see it actually occur.

There is. I've just explained it to you.

But that's what you want us to believe. That we transform from something completely different over millions of years.

That is exactly what happens. Do you even realise that the whale was once a land animal?

That's the beauty of being a Christian. We are not slaves to the need of self pride. I have no problem admitting that I don't know a whole lot in the realm of science so your efforts to intimidate me fall to the ground.

Nothing to do with self-pride lad. It is a matter of intellectual honesty. If you insist on claiming that something isn't true whilst clearly demonstrating that you don't know even the basics of that which you are trying to dismiss, then sooner or later someone is going to rip your head of...as I have done to you.

But I don't need a science degree to understand that evolution does not answer everything and has been gaping holes of logic.

Well there again you see. You claimed earlier that evolution wasn't true and I asked you to explain what key factors you disagreed with. You ignored that and here you go again making the same statement. You claim that the ToE has gaping holes in it so now tell us what, in your expert opinion, those holes are.

I'm not sure you are right there. I think people can and are convicted based only on personal testimony and even more so if thousands of people are testifying the same thing.

If 100 people claimed that they saw the blue car drive through the red stop light it's possible that a conviction could follow because a car driving through a red light is not beyond the realms of credibility. However, claims from people that they saw someone walking on water, feeding thousands with little food and having more food left than they started with, curing blind people, lame people, raising people from the dead, performing miracles the like of which had never been seen before or since and being killed and coming back to life...especially when the testimonies are gathered into one unverifiable source (Bible) are to be treated with a pinch of salt...unless they have supporting evidence...and your Bible does not.

Then that's your problem.

I don't have a problem. I don't believe in angels, demons or gods.

Thank you for demonstrating your unfairness. YOu haven't even watched the video and yet automatically dismiss it.

I watched it. I clicked on the link and watched. If you are claiming that it demonstrates supernatural events the please do tell me the points where they are...but I saw no such thing.

No, it is a comment that serves NO purpose in the discussion. Absolutely not.

It has EVERY purpose when you are claiming that something is false and yet you have demonstrated that you do not even understand the basic functions of that which are claiming is false. That is called INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

Newsflash, it is impossible to prove that ANY historical event in that era really did take place beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I'm sure you have no problem accepting without question the histories of other cultures or believing that Alexander the Great once existed.

Of course I have no problem with believing Alexander existed. Can you find 4 cities named after your JtC like there are for Alexander? Id like to see you try to tear apart the evidence for Alexander's existence. The man had buildings erected after him, sculptures, murals, paintings, mosaics made after himself and his victories that are still in existence today. The man took over the entire Persian Empire and whose death brought about a complete change in the Greek culture. You can’t deny the existence of a man who has SOLID evidence backing up his existence.

Then you tell me in specific detail example of evidence that you would accept.

Just about anything that is objective, verifiable and does not rely on the Bible or other religious documents for confirmation. For example. Do you have anything that is contemporaneous to your JtC that claims that such a person existed and was seen performed amazing miracles?

The atheist admited that it would take God coming down to earth and shooting laser beams from his eyes and melting a steel structure.

Well that would work but we all know how shy your god is in that he hasn't made a public gig on over 4000 years so.....how about him eliminating world hunger overnight. That ought to be a walk in the park for an omnimax deity that can simple 'speak' the universe into existence huh?