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.
I didn't mention it because the post by Arjay I responded to was not at issue with that...and did not address that.
That said...what percentages of all the instances of love that were ever proclaimed to have existed were tested to "prove" their validity? One out of a billion? Less? I'd hardly say those tests are conclusive. They show that some chemical reaction occurs...but then, a chemical ration occurs in our brain with any and every thought anyway. I'm not saying those tests MIGHT be accurate in their conclusion...but I still don't believe you can test for "feelings"...and then definitively determine what those feelings are. Feelings and emotions are "mixed"...and people respond differently to different feelings and emotions.
By that logic...I could take people that claim belief in God...test their brain activity when they are contemplating God...and if I note similar activity in their brains...declare that as empirical evidence of their belief.
You could, and I am sure it would be the same reaction as love, because they love their god We know there is a chemical reaction in the body for most of what we do and feel. We don't need empirical evidence of your beliefs, we know you believe , it is quite evident, we are asking for empirical evidence for your god to which there is none.
You could, and I am sure it would be the same reaction as love, because they love their god We know there is a chemical reaction in the body for most of what we do and feel. We don't need empirical evidence of your beliefs, we know you believe , it is quite evident, we are asking for empirical evidence for your god to which there is none.
You say there is no empirical evidence for God...but that is not the case...the evidence is there...and it's overwhelming.
Some Atheists just choose to label what that evidence shows them..."The Universe", "Nature", "All that exists", etc...so they don't have to call it "God"....even though what they deny is God, demonstrates all the attributes of God. And like I said...that's convenient for Atheists to call God something other than "God"...and then deny God exists...but doesn't change that it is prima facie evidence of God.
You say there is no empirical evidence for God...but that is not the case...the evidence is there...and it's overwhelming.
Some Atheists just choose to label what that evidence shows them..."The Universe", "Nature", "All that exists", etc...so they don't have to call it "God"....even though what they deny is God, demonstrates all the attributes of God. And like I said...that's convenient for Atheists to call God something other than "God"...and then deny God exists...but doesn't change that it is prima facie evidence of God.
Nature is not a god, it is weather, both pleasant and deadly, it is plants both beautiful and non, it is animals friendly and dangerous. It is completely unpredictable and we can harm it and it us. The Universe is not a god it is a set of solar systems and plants and asteroids and black holes and more. There is no evidence for any god. You may want to see a god in everything, but it just isn't there. Us atheists just see it for what it is and nothing more.
Nature is not a god, it is weather, both pleasant and deadly, it is plants both beautiful and non, it is animals friendly and dangerous. It is completely unpredictable and we can harm it and it us. The Universe is not a god it is a set of solar systems and plants and asteroids and black holes and more. There is no evidence for any god. You may want to see a god in everything, but it just isn't there. Us atheists just see it for what it is and nothing more.
The Atheists have their viewpoint...The Believers have theirs.
I submit...just from a position of fairness and equity---since 90% of the worldwide vote holds in favor of the existence of God...it should be considered that "There IS a God" currently "holds office", is the sitting incumbent...and it is up to the Atheist challenger to try to unseat Him. So far you have lost every election by a landslide...you are going to need a whole new strategy if you ever hope to contest in the race with any effectiveness.
As I said before..."God" doesn't have to "prove" anything...He's the current Champion...it is up to the challenging viewpoint to prove their position. The challenger can "call out" the Champ...but then the challenger has to deliver "the goods". I've yet to see any challenger make a showing worthy of any note.
The Atheists have their viewpoint...The Believers have theirs.
I submit...just from a position of fairness and equity---since 90% of the worldwide vote holds in favor of the existence of God...it should be considered that "There IS a God" currently "holds office", is the sitting incumbent...and it is up to the Atheist challenger to try to unseat Him. So far you have lost every election by a landslide...you are going to need a whole new strategy if you ever hope to contest in the race with any effectiveness.
As I said before..."God" doesn't have to "prove" anything...He's the current Champion...it is up to the challenging viewpoint to prove their position. The challenger can "call out" the Champ...but then the challenger has to deliver "the goods". I've yet to see any challenger make a showing worthy of any note.
The Atheists have their viewpoint...The Believers have theirs.
I submit...just from a position of fairness and equity---since 90% of the worldwide vote holds in favor of the existence of God...it should be considered that "There IS a God" currently "holds office", is the sitting incumbent...and it is up to the Atheist challenger to try to unseat Him. So far you have lost every election by a landslide...you are going to need a whole new strategy if you ever hope to contest in the race with any effectiveness.
As I said before..."God" doesn't have to "prove" anything...He's the current Champion...it is up to the challenging viewpoint to prove their position. The challenger can "call out" the Champ...but then the challenger has to deliver "the goods". I've yet to see any challenger make a showing worthy of any note.
No they dont. Please show me your link that 90% of the world believes in your god. I cant find it anywhere.
Ah yes, democracy. The idea that a thousand fools are wiser than any one man, and should wield authority over him.
You got a "better", "more fair" way than democracy?
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.