Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ur trying too hard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > He didn't claim he was a god. But anyone who
> uses
> > the "where did it come from" argument to prove
> God
> > exists is wrong.
> >
> > The idea that life cannot come to be without
> some
> > other life to create it is simple minded.
> > Proteins exist because over millions or
> billions
> > of years, simpler elements combined to create
> more
> > complex compounds.
> >
> > Thinking that a God is necessary for existence
> to
> > exist is silly. How did the God come to exist?
>
> > Is there are god that created god, and who
> created
> > that god?
> >
> > Fairy tales are certainly comforting, but they
> > don't explain existence as well as probability
> > does -- the universe exists because nature
> abhors
> > a vacuum. It is there becuase if it wasn't
> there,
> > something else would exist in its place.
>
>
> Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion,
> but your post is nothing but that...your opinion.
> The biggest problem with the religion of human
> secularism is that it can not answer the
> fundemental problem of where did everything come
> from. They have to suspend the laws of physics to
> answer it. Something can't come from nothing.
> Energy can not self-actuate. An unregulated
> system can not evolve over the course of billions
> of years (it should devolve as unregulation leads
> to chaos). The impossibility of self initated
> perpetual motion. All of these things must be
> ignored if we're to believe that the universe
> created itself. And since you and your religion
> of intolerance and self-centeredness can't answer
> the basic question, then anything is possible,
> including the existence of God. In fact, it is
> easily possible and supported by both logic,
> deductive reasoning and tangible evidence.
>
> So you have your opinion. I have mine. Neither
> is proveable. Why do you anti-Godhaists feel the
> need to shout everyone else down because they
> don't agree with you? You can't defend your
> position so you try and silence the other side
> (see OP's post for example). Believe what you
> want, but stop telling anyone else (other than
> perhaps your kids) what to believe and stop acting
> like you're smarter than anyone else because of
> your opinions. 'Cause you know what they
> say about opinions.

Typical deist blather.

Science does a increasingly thorough job indeed at explaining the mechanisms behind everything since the Big Bang. There is no indication of anything during the last 13.5 B years that requires a supernatural explanation - at any scale.

No evidence of an interventionist god during the last 13 Billion years then.

Similarly, it seems pretty clear that every atom of heavy element in the universe was forged in the nuclear reactions and final explosions of generations of stars. The idea that the big bang was so carefully crafted that the fate of every sub-atomic particle was so well positioned that out popped catholics is a bizarre assertion which flies in the face of our understanding of the math of chaotic and quantum mechanical

No indication of a master math god then.

So you suggest that the best explanation for the workings of the universe is an old bloke on a cloud who shoves off for 13.5B years, and then congratulates you for not eating fish on fridays or remembering to chop off babies' foreskins before whisking you off to your full quota of virgins waiting over at your own personal valhalla (add your own doctrinal variant)?

The evidence is irrefutable that the climatologists that you believe actively and deliberately tried to squash evdience that contradicted their own. Thus, a handful of "leading" climatologists ending up controlling what was published in journals and studies. This skewed the data for the entire community. You think every climatologist is out there doing studieds on global warming? There are 4 (let me write that again four) datasets that are used to study global warming. All are controlled and managed by global warming Nazis and two are controlled by the people who tried to stamp out all dissent. The temperature measurements have no consistency until about 30 years ago because of a lack of controlling for growth of population centers around the measuring stations and a lack of true global measuring. Climatologists can predict the weather at 80% accuracy up to 4 days out, 60% accuracy up to 7 days out and 50/50 at best beyond that. Yet we're to believe they can predict what will happen years, decades or centuries from now? Their past history does not allow them that confidence (thus, my observation about the seas dying). It is junk science because the scientists have made it so. Instead of following the scientific methods through its natural course, those who could have manipulated the findings, the access to data, the ability to publish and utimately called into question the entire field of study. If global warming was not a darling of political ideology, it would have been torn down and started from scratch long ago.

Belive what you want. Your statement that 97% believe something makes it logical is a false argument. Not only because the 97% who believe it are basing their opinions are skewed date, but it is a fallacy of ad populum.

Sorry that you don't find my replies insightful. Let me know when you find them to be factually wrong.

Blow the bridges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical deist blather.


Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.

Go back to the boonies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can always move back to the backwater village
> in Texas where you came from, or you could home
> school your child so that it isn't exposed to
> ideas that conflict with your superstitions.


you should meditate.

Festive Troll Hunting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lotus Blossom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Keep getting dumber, please Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> >
>
> >
> > Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Is that
> > scientific?
>
> Nope - just as much an old superstition as White
> Cloud Guy
>
> Mind you, it is interesting that Buddhist monks
> can do cool thing with their own consciousness
> through intensive practice - although 2 glasses of
> red wine is my own preferred approach


that's why you think other people's experinces are fake and only your interpretation is correct. you are ignorant and you are ignorant of your ignorance. According to you and your ilk, nothing exists outside of the human sense. Mighty arrogant.

have you seen an atom? no? but you believe those that tell you it exists. why? because of your conditioning..er education?

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The evidence is irrefutable that the
> climatologists that you believe actively and
> deliberately tried to squash evdience that
> contradicted their own. Thus, a handful of
> "leading" climatologists ending up controlling
> what was published in journals and studies. This
> skewed the data for the entire community. You
> think every climatologist is out there doing
> studieds on global warming? There are 4 (let me
> write that again four) datasets that are
> used to study global warming. All are controlled
> and managed by global warming Nazis and two are
> controlled by the people who tried to stamp out
> all dissent. The temperature measurements have no
> consistency until about 30 years ago because of a
> lack of controlling for growth of population
> centers around the measuring stations and a lack
> of true global measuring. Climatologists can
> predict the weather at 80% accuracy up to 4 days
> out, 60% accuracy up to 7 days out and 50/50 at
> best beyond that. Yet we're to believe they can
> predict what will happen years, decades or
> centuries from now? Their past history does not
> allow them that confidence (thus, my observation
> about the seas dying). It is junk science because
> the scientists have made it so. Instead of
> following the scientific methods through its
> natural course, those who could have manipulated
> the findings, the access to data, the ability to
> publish and utimately called into question the
> entire field of study. If global warming was not
> a darling of political ideology, it would have
> been torn down and started from scratch long ago.
>
> Belive what you want. Your statement that 97%
> believe something makes it logical is a false
> argument. Not only because the 97% who believe it
> are basing their opinions are skewed date, but it
> is a fallacy of ad populum.
>
> Sorry that you don't find my replies insightful.
> Let me know when you find them to be factually
> wrong.

What facts - you have cited none. Not one article, not one study, nothing. Just your opinion that if 97% of scientists in a particular field accept a scientific conclusion that they are controlled by a fraction of a percent of 'Nazis'. You qualify scientific consensus as invalid because it is an arguement ad populum? Not only are your arguments irrational they are inconsistent with observed reality.

You tell me I am to believe you because you, a layman, say so. In doing so I have to reject 97% of experts in an exacting field because you make an unsupported claim that 4 persons are controlling tens of thousands of other scientists.

To me this is the point where it clearly makes no sense debating a point with someone. I am required to buy into the highly improbable based on your unsupported beliefs.

AnnoyedSheepDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Festive Troll Hunting Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lotus Blossom Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Keep getting dumber, please Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> > >
> > > Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Is that
> > > scientific?
> >
> > Nope - just as much an old superstition as
> White
> > Cloud Guy
> >
> > Mind you, it is interesting that Buddhist monks
> > can do cool thing with their own consciousness
> > through intensive practice - although 2 glasses
> of
> > red wine is my own preferred approach
>
>
> that's why you think other people's experinces are
> fake and only your interpretation is correct. you
> are ignorant and you are ignorant of your
> ignorance. According to you and your ilk, nothing
> exists outside of the human sense. Mighty
> arrogant.

'experiences' are clearly subjective - we are able to manipulate our own mental processes to some degree - directly through chemistry or self referentially through tools like meditation.

It's shouldn't be suprising that the conscious mind should be able to act on itself - we know that the mind is deeply en-meshed with memory and the establishment of patterns - we know in our day to day experience that we can manipulate our own emotions, why would be surprised if there was more that could be done with practice. Mind is what the brain does -

Your mental processes do nothing to change the way in which physics works. You wishing it worked differently makes no difference whatsoever - it works the same for everyone and as far as we can tell everywhere and at all times, even at the extremes of scale and energy

The real arrogance is the egocentrism of religious nutters such as yourself. The universe does not revolve around you. It just does what it does irrespective of how you'd like it to be. You can however measure and model what it does.

AnnoyedSheepDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> have you seen an atom? no? but you believe those
> that tell you it exists. why? because of your
> conditioning..er education?


Well, yes, thank you - I have seen an atom

http://phys.org/news205161948.html

I think you rather prove my point - the atom is something which was predicted by experimental science - and lo-and-behold, when you can finally build good enough tools, there it is for all to see

if you prefer them in multiples

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19584301

which is a prettier image to my mind - must be my conditioning

So I've shown you my atom - where's your god then?

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Climatologists can
> predict the weather at 80% accuracy up to 4 days
> out, 60% accuracy up to 7 days out and 50/50 at
> best beyond that. Yet we're to believe they can
> predict what will happen years, decades or
> centuries from now?

Climatologists do not forecast weekly weather that would be the science of Meteorology http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Differences_between_climatology_and_meteorology

outofyourdepth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Climatologists can
> > predict the weather at 80% accuracy up to 4
> days
> > out, 60% accuracy up to 7 days out and 50/50 at
> > best beyond that. Yet we're to believe they
> can
> > predict what will happen years, decades or
> > centuries from now?
>
> Climatologists do not forecast weekly weather that
> would be the science of Meteorology
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Differences_between_clim
> atology_and_meteorology

Yup - weather is tactics, climate is strategy,

Weather is 'we missed most of the snow yesterday' (see yesterday's TV) climate is 'much of the Northern US used to be covered in glaciers' (see the shape of the mountains and the terminal moraines)

I think god came here after the dinos. Earth was already developet and he put people in place. Dont know about Adam and eve. Kinda wierd we all might be related or kin. Next of kin or sommething like that. Maybe stock up with mor ammo to be safe. Whats you think?

Larry Bean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think god came here after the dinos. Earth was
> already developet and he put people in place. Dont
> know about Adam and eve. Kinda wierd we all might
> be related or kin. Next of kin or sommething like
> that. Maybe stock up with mor ammo to be safe.
> Whats you think?


Interesting theory. But what type of snake would tempt Ms.Eve?

Probably trouser, given the type of floozie she was. Why the bitches gotta eat everything they see?

Serpents in our mist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting theory. But what type of snake would
> tempt Ms.Eve?


ROFLMAO!!!!

if you cant read that back to yourself and figure that one out by yourself, then you need help

LoLz

Per usual here at good old FFXU, this conversation has devolved into childish name-calling, opinions-as-fact and warrantless self-adoration. Nothing new.

You've accused science of "suspending the laws of physics" and claim "something can't come from nothing", then finish off by saying the the existence of god is logical.

Well the concept of god is a COMPLETE suspension of the laws of physics, and if "something can't come from nothing", then where the heck did this god hypothesis come from?

You make no sense.

bornagaindad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What facts - you have cited none. Not one
> article, not one study, nothing. Just your
> opinion that if 97% of scientists in a particular
> field accept a scientific conclusion that they are
> controlled by a fraction of a percent of 'Nazis'.
> You qualify scientific consensus as invalid
> because it is an arguement ad populum? Not only
> are your arguments irrational they are
> inconsistent with observed reality.
>
> You tell me I am to believe you because you, a
> layman, say so. In doing so I have to reject 97%
> of experts in an exacting field because you make
> an unsupported claim that 4 persons are
> controlling tens of thousands of other
> scientists.
>
> To me this is the point where it clearly makes no
> sense debating a point with someone. I am
> required to buy into the highly improbable based
> on your unsupported beliefs.


What is highly improbable? That global warming has morphed into a political ideology? That the conclusions of the global warming acolytes are suspect? That the data has been fudged? Or that God exists (the orginial topic and the only one that I'm interested in "debating"). You're the one who turned this into a non-sequitur on the verascity of global warming. I pointed out that there are conflicting views (with supportable valid concerns). You can't seem to accept that FACT. I have no problem with whether global warming is real or not or even whether the cause is directly atrributable to humans or not. I don't care about global warming. As I have written over and over, believe what you want. Man-caused global warming is not a fact. It is certainly plausible. The data and process has been corrupted, so until that is rectified, anything coming out of that community is suspect and open to attack.

Mars is also getting warmer (a factaccording to NASA). You post a link to an article on the various reasons why Mars is getting warmer. So increased seismic activity on Mars is a perfectly acceptable cause for warming on Mars, but not on Earth? Why? Why MUST it be humans causing global warming on Earth but not on Mars?

Your faith is strong, but your reasoning is not.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've accused science of "suspending the laws of
> physics" and claim "something can't come from
> nothing", then finish off by saying the the
> existence of god is logical.
>
> Well the concept of god is a COMPLETE suspension
> of the laws of physics, and if "something can't
> come from nothing", then where the heck did this
> god hypothesis come from?
>
> You make no sense.


God exists beyond the laws that He created. Can you say the same about the universe? No, not with any credibility. Your entire belief system is based on continuity of the "truths" from the scientists and their theories. So, your religion is the one with the problem of logic and consistency, not mine.

I make no sense to you because you don't want to see how senseless your Church of Reason quickly becomes. Believe what you want, but understand that the illogic of your position is glaring after a few deviations from your core doctrinal principles.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> God exists beyond the laws that He created.
>

Please explain where you learned this information and how you were able to verify that it was correct.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > God exists beyond the laws that He created.
> >
>
> Please explain where you learned this information
> and how you were able to verify that it was
> correct.


OK, here's the explanation: He's God. There ya go.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> OK, here's the explanation: He's God. There ya
> go.

Is this the god of christianity, or maybe some other god invented by ancient humans- maybe one of the Greek or Norse gods? A Hindu god maybe, or maybe some unknown god who dictates astrological signs and reveals daily horoscopes?

It would be interesting to hear how you know which god did all of this. Did he/she tell you who they were?

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > OK, here's the explanation: He's God. There
> ya
> > go.
>
> Is this the god of christianity, or maybe some
> other god invented by ancient humans- maybe one of
> the Greek or Norse gods? A Hindu god maybe, or
> maybe some unknown god who dictates astrological
> signs and reveals daily horoscopes?
>
> It would be interesting to hear how you know which
> god did all of this. Did he/she tell you who they
> were?


Perhaps they are all interpretations of the same God. For me, it is the God of the Bible. Do you have anything valuable or new to add or are you just going to keep going around in the same circles that you always do when attempting to discuss this?

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trooth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > > OK, here's the explanation: He's God. There
> > ya
> > > go.
> >
> > Is this the god of christianity, or maybe some
> > other god invented by ancient humans- maybe one
> of
> > the Greek or Norse gods? A Hindu god maybe, or
> > maybe some unknown god who dictates
> astrological
> > signs and reveals daily horoscopes?
> >
> > It would be interesting to hear how you know
> which
> > god did all of this. Did he/she tell you who
> they
> > were?
>
>
> Perhaps they are all interpretations of the same
> God. For me, it is the God of the Bible. Do you
> have anything valuable or new to add or are you
> just going to keep going around in the same
> circles that you always do when attempting to
> discuss this?


You keep spouting old drivel, refusing to provide any evidence or details and just ranting the same crap again and again - never once describing a single phenomena that requires a supernatural explanation. So your god is a random and contradictory amalgam of hurled thunderbolts, crashing rocks and talking trees?

Nothing you say makes any sense whatsoever.

You're a delusional fool - there seems to be no way of saying it nicely

Trooth Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> Perhaps they are all interpretations of the same God.



> Perhaps they are all interpretations of the same God.

> Perhaps they are all interpretations of the same God.

> Perhaps they are all interpretations of the same God.

¥



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2018 11:01PM by Wayfarer.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >
> > Perhaps they are all interpretations of the same
> God.
>
>
> src="http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2010112
> 4204427/deadliestfiction/images/2/24/Waco01.jpg"><
> br>> Perhaps they are all interpretations of the
> same God.
> src="http://www.sott.net/image/image/s5/100946/med
> ium/jimjones_e13008179734695.jpg">
> Perhaps
> they are all interpretations of the same God.
> src="http://www.realcourage.org/wp-content/uploads
> /2010/02/9-11-attack.jpg">
> Perhaps they are
> all interpretations of the same God.
> src="http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/tom-cru
> ise-oprah-couch-2.jpg">


Nope. Doing things in the name of God that hurts others in His name is against the teachings of Christ. You are, per usual, confused and uneducated on the facts. If I post pictures of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Eric Harris and Dylan Kelbold, etc does that mean all you anti-Godhadists are mass-murdering, genocidal losers?

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bornagaindad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > What facts - you have cited none. Not one
> > article, not one study, nothing. Just your
> > opinion that if 97% of scientists in a
> particular
> > field accept a scientific conclusion that they
> are
> > controlled by a fraction of a percent of
> 'Nazis'.
> > You qualify scientific consensus as invalid
> > because it is an arguement ad populum? Not
> only
> > are your arguments irrational they are
> > inconsistent with observed reality.
> >
> > You tell me I am to believe you because you, a
> > layman, say so. In doing so I have to reject
> 97%
> > of experts in an exacting field because you
> make
> > an unsupported claim that 4 persons are
> > controlling tens of thousands of other
> > scientists.
> >
> > To me this is the point where it clearly makes
> no
> > sense debating a point with someone. I am
> > required to buy into the highly improbable
> based
> > on your unsupported beliefs.
>
>
> What is highly improbable?

40% vs. 60% certainty = improbable; 3% dissenting scientists vs. 97% majority scientists = highly improbable (that the 97% are in error)

That global warming
> has morphed into a political ideology? That the
> conclusions of the global warming acolytes are
> suspect? That the data has been fudged? Or that
> God exists (the orginial topic and the only one
> that I'm interested in "debating").

Please see below...

You're the
> one who turned this into a non-sequitur on the
> verascity of global warming. I pointed out that
> there are conflicting views (with supportable
> valid concerns). You can't seem to accept that
> FACT.

I accept that 3% of Climate scientists disagree with 97% of Climate scientists.

I have no problem with whether
> global warming is real or not or even whether the
> cause is directly atrributable to humans or not.
> I don't care about global warming.

I believe that you do not care about global climate change yet you seem invested in refuting the veracity of proof given by virtually the entire field of Climatology.

As I have
> written over and over, believe what you want.
> Man-caused global warming is not a fact. It is
> certainly plausible.

I think you mean it is not a scientific 'law' to which I agree - it is however the currently the correct scientific 'Model.'

The data and process has
> been corrupted, so until that is rectified,
> anything coming out of that community is suspect
> and open to attack.

All science is open to review and attack at All times - that IS science.
>
> Mars is also getting warmer (a
> factaccording to NASA). You post a link to
> an article on the various reasons why Mars is
> getting warmer.

Its not http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

So increased seismic activity on
> Mars is a perfectly acceptable cause for warming
> on Mars, but not on Earth? Why? Why MUST it be
> humans causing global warming on Earth but not on
> Mars?
>
> Your faith is strong, but your reasoning is not.

I do have faith but I have not stated what or Whom it is in. I am glad however, to let you know I do have Christian faith - thanks for being interested.

"Or that
> God exists (the orginial topic and the only one
> that I'm interested in "debating"). "

I have some training in Ontology so this is and always has been a fascinating topic to me. In terms of my own faith I dont have much need or interest in debating to another the existence of God because I do not need to prove it beyond my own faith. I believe that faith and 'proof' are pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum. Just like I do not believe ideas in the Bible will help me predict the weather or climate, neither do I believe science will in anyway help me understand the spiritual or for that matter eternity.

If it comforts you I do feel that everything including science (and even Evil) is God. I do not feel science is everything, in fact I believe it is merely the very best we can do to understand the smallest fraction of existence. We happen to live in the very smallest fraction of existence so science is a pretty big deal in our physical world...

¥



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2018 10:59PM by Wayfarer.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Nope. Doing things in the name of God that hurts
> others in His name is against the teachings of
> Christ. You are, per usual, confused and
> uneducated on the facts. If I post pictures of
> Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Eric Harris and
> Dylan Kelbold, etc does that mean all you
> anti-Godhadists are mass-murdering, genocidal
> losers?

That's the problem - you want it both ways. You want to claim that all 'faith' should be tolerated and supported - but then you want to promote your own with no evidence on which to justify its pre-eminence.

I take a simple line - all 'faith' unsupported by or in contradiction to the evidence is bunk. Society should have no truck with it what-so-ever,

I suggest that we withdraw all benefits, such as tax evasion, planning exceptions and congressional prayer breakfasts, until all of you 'faith groups' can agree on which one of you is right. You can choose your own method of debate - verbal, knuckledusters, the old favorite of ethnic cleansing, whatever.

If you're right, this should be pretty simple - presumably, you'll just present your evidence like nice people and work through the minor discrepancies in a gentlemanly way. Perhaps you could run it like a knock-out. Round 1: aum shinrikyo vs mormonism, catholicism vs scientology, hindusim vs evangelical christianity

Meanwhile we scientists and engineers will go on understanding, inventing and building stuff

We won't wait up for you - but we may watch and eat popcorn for while

bornagaindad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > bornagaindad Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > What facts - you have cited none. Not one
> > > article, not one study, nothing. Just your
> > > opinion that if 97% of scientists in a
> > particular
> > > field accept a scientific conclusion that
> they
> > are
> > > controlled by a fraction of a percent of
> > 'Nazis'.
> > > You qualify scientific consensus as invalid
> > > because it is an arguement ad populum? Not
> > only
> > > are your arguments irrational they are
> > > inconsistent with observed reality.
> > >
> > > You tell me I am to believe you because you,
> a
> > > layman, say so. In doing so I have to reject
> > 97%
> > > of experts in an exacting field because you
> > make
> > > an unsupported claim that 4 persons are
> > > controlling tens of thousands of other
> > > scientists.
> > >
> > > To me this is the point where it clearly
> makes
> > no
> > > sense debating a point with someone. I am
> > > required to buy into the highly improbable
> > based
> > > on your unsupported beliefs.
> >
> >
> > What is highly improbable?
>
> 40% vs. 60% certainty = improbable; 3% dissenting
> scientists vs. 97% majority scientists = highly
> improbable (that the 97% are in error)
>
> That global warming
> > has morphed into a political ideology? That
> the
> > conclusions of the global warming acolytes are
> > suspect? That the data has been fudged? Or
> that
> > God exists (the orginial topic and the only one
> > that I'm interested in "debating").
>
> Please see below...
>
> You're the
> > one who turned this into a non-sequitur on the
> > verascity of global warming. I pointed out
> that
> > there are conflicting views (with supportable
> > valid concerns). You can't seem to accept that
> > FACT.
>
> I accept that 3% of Climate scientists disagree
> with 97% of Climate scientists.
>
> I have no problem with whether
> > global warming is real or not or even whether
> the
> > cause is directly atrributable to humans or not.
>
> > I don't care about global warming.
>
> I believe that you do not care about global
> climate change yet you seem invested in refuting
> the veracity of proof given by virtually the
> entire field of Climatology.
>
> As I have
> > written over and over, believe what you want.
> > Man-caused global warming is not a fact. It is
> > certainly plausible.
>
> I think you mean it is not a scientific 'law' to
> which I agree - it is however the currently the
> correct scientific 'Model.'
>
> The data and process has
> > been corrupted, so until that is rectified,
> > anything coming out of that community is
> suspect
> > and open to attack.
>
> All science is open to review and attack at All
> times - that IS science.
> >
> > Mars is also getting warmer (a
> > factaccording to NASA). You post a link
> to
> > an article on the various reasons why Mars is
> > getting warmer.
>
> Its not
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-
> mars.htm
>
> So increased seismic activity on
> > Mars is a perfectly acceptable cause for
> warming
> > on Mars, but not on Earth? Why? Why MUST it
> be
> > humans causing global warming on Earth but not
> on
> > Mars?
> >
> > Your faith is strong, but your reasoning is
> not.
>
> I do have faith but I have not stated what or Whom
> it is in. I am glad however, to let you know I do
> have Christian faith - thanks for being
> interested.
>
> "Or that
> > God exists (the orginial topic and the only one
> > that I'm interested in "debating"). "
>
> I have some training in Ontology so this is and
> always has been a fascinating topic to me. In
> terms of my own faith I dont have much need or
> interest in debating to another the existence of
> God because I do not need to prove it beyond my
> own faith. I believe that faith and 'proof' are
> pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum.
> Just like I do not believe ideas in the Bible will
> help me predict the weather or climate, neither do
> I believe science will in anyway help me
> understand the spiritual or for that matter
> eternity.
>
> If it comforts you I do feel that everything
> including science (and even Evil) is God. I do
> not feel science is everything, in fact I believe
> it is merely the very best we can do to understand
> the smallest fraction of existence. We happen to
> live in the very smallest fraction of existence so
> science is a pretty big deal in our physical
> world...


Then we pretty much agree on things. I find your global warming harangue a red herring, but I guess this diversion had some purpose for you.

Blow the bridges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trooth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Nope. Doing things in the name of God that
> hurts
> > others in His name is against the teachings of
> > Christ. You are, per usual, confused and
> > uneducated on the facts. If I post pictures of
> > Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Eric Harris and
> > Dylan Kelbold, etc does that mean all you
> > anti-Godhadists are mass-murdering, genocidal
> > losers?
>
> That's the problem - you want it both ways. You
> want to claim that all 'faith' should be tolerated
> and supported - but then you want to promote your
> own with no evidence on which to justify its
> pre-eminence.
>
> I take a simple line - all 'faith' unsupported by
> or in contradiction to the evidence is bunk.
> Society should have no truck with it
> what-so-ever,
>
> I suggest that we withdraw all benefits, such as
> tax evasion, planning exceptions and congressional
> prayer breakfasts, until all of you 'faith groups'
> can agree on which one of you is right. You can
> choose your own method of debate - verbal,
> knuckledusters, the old favorite of ethnic
> cleansing, whatever.
>
> If you're right, this should be pretty simple -
> presumably, you'll just present your evidence like
> nice people and work through the minor
> discrepancies in a gentlemanly way. Perhaps you
> could run it like a knock-out. Round 1: aum
> shinrikyo vs mormonism, catholicism vs
> scientology, hindusim vs evangelical christianity
>
> Meanwhile we scientists and engineers will go on
> understanding, inventing and building stuff
>
> We won't wait up for you - but we may watch and
> eat popcorn for while


An engineer, perhaps. But a scientist, no way. You don't demonstrate a shread of intellectual curiosity, an ability to see beyond your own rigid presumptions and half-informed conclusions or any termperance for actual truth that drives a scientist. I know tons of engineers. They are black and white kind of thinkers. You post in black and white thought. I also know tons of scientists. They are the opposite. They think in "what ifs" and they wonder why things are. You haven't shown any of that.

I don't want it both ways. Wanting all faiths to be tolerated and saying I'm right are not contradictory. The only way that could be true is if, by saying I'm right, I was also saying that I don't want all faiths to be tolerated. Your agrument makes no sense.

Tolerate any faith that isn't predicated on or trying to kill or hurt others. Let everyone (including anti-Godhadists) believe what they want. But it is only you and your religion of intolerant, psuedo-intellectual human secularism that tries to shut everyone else up, deride and ridicule and force the fanatical views of the minority on the rest of us by seizing control of the courts. Believing oneself to be right and also being tolerant of others is what most well-mannered, civil people do. There is a dearth of such people in your religion (none that I have found).

@Trooth 31 dec 8:51pm: +1 I agree with you entirely. Any truly decent human being should abide by your last paragraph. I consider myself an agnostic, but indeed there is something to the Biblical passage "Judge not that ye be not judged."

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Tolerate any faith that isn't predicated on or
> trying to kill or hurt others. Let everyone
> (including anti-Godhadists) believe what they
> want. But it is only you and your religion of
> intolerant, psuedo-intellectual human secularism
> that tries to shut everyone else up, deride and
> ridicule and force the fanatical views of the
> minority on the rest of us by seizing control of
> the courts. Believing oneself to be right and
> also being tolerant of others is what most
> well-mannered, civil people do. There is a dearth
> of such people in your religion (none that I have
> found).

Well I certainly wouldn't class myself as humanist - I guess you're throwing that around as some kind of perceived insult

And who exactly do you see 'seizing the courts'?

When we have a supreme court packed with the likes of Scalia and Roberts and judgements such as Citizen's United; we know exactly who has seized the courts. Do you really think we have an atheist supreme court - or anywhere near it? If so, I have a bridge to sell you

Asking for a bit of proof here and there about assertions around how the world works, and that have real world implications on real people (especially the poor and female) is hardly fanatical.

Refusing to provide any while demanding special privileges and decrying anyone who may question - well that's fanaticism. Too much of the Fox News 'war on christmas' / 'sharia in the courtroom', 'pushing god out of our schools' kook-aid methinks - one step from the '9-11 was god's judgement on the [..fill in your pet fear...]'. It's a constant smokescreen of victimhood,


Throughout this whole discussion, you've offered not a single piece of evidence or rationale as to why your cult should be given credence over the solar temple, the people's temple, aum shinrikyo, filipino spirit healers, mithrists or the mayans

... and that's because there isn't any - no angels on pin-heads, no divine intervention, no prayers answered, no magic underwear, no saints bones, no miracles, no aliens turning up to save you from armageddon

None of your mythologies stand up to any critique - that's why you should all be viewed as fools and charlatans along with the westboro baptist maniacs and treated accordingly

Look, you've had 2000 years to hone your proof and arguments - and, frankly, you have nothing to show for it,

Science can lead us in the direction of faith - they are both very useful things

Blow the bridges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Well I certainly wouldn't class myself as humanist
> - I guess you're throwing that around as some kind
> of perceived insult
>
> And who exactly do you see 'seizing the courts'?
>
> When we have a supreme court packed with the likes
> of Scalia and Roberts and judgements such as
> Citizen's United; we know exactly who has seized
> the courts. Do you really think we have an atheist
> supreme court - or anywhere near it? If so, I have
> a bridge to sell you
>
> Asking for a bit of proof here and there about
> assertions around how the world works, and that
> have real world implications on real people
> (especially the poor and female) is hardly
> fanatical.
>
> Refusing to provide any while demanding special
> privileges and decrying anyone who may question -
> well that's fanaticism. Too much of the Fox News
> 'war on christmas' / 'sharia in the courtroom',
> 'pushing god out of our schools' kook-aid methinks
> - one step from the '9-11 was god's judgement on
> the [..fill in your pet fear...]'. It's a constant
> smokescreen of victimhood,
>
>
> Throughout this whole discussion, you've offered
> not a single piece of evidence or rationale as to
> why your cult should be given credence over the
> solar temple, the people's temple, aum shinrikyo,
> filipino spirit healers, mithrists or the mayans
>
> ... and that's because there isn't any - no angels
> on pin-heads, no divine intervention, no prayers
> answered, no magic underwear, no saints bones, no
> miracles, no aliens turning up to save you from
> armageddon
>
> None of your mythologies stand up to any critique
> - that's why you should all be viewed as fools and
> charlatans along with the westboro baptist maniacs
> and treated accordingly
>
> Look, you've had 2000 years to hone your proof and
> arguments - and, frankly, you have nothing to show
> for it,


For someone whining about the need for proof, you sure throw around a lot of opinions like they are fact. I never said Christians deserve more credence than any other religion. But you apparently do have a special hatred for Christianity. You believe what you want. I don't care what you do. Think whatever you want about those who believe in God and spew your judgemental nonsense here for all to see. Then babble about "special priviledges" while spouting intolerant pretzel logic. Your self-grandizing screeds say much more about you and your anti-Godhadist church of reason than anything I could write.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> For someone whining about the need for proof, you
> sure throw around a lot of opinions like they are
> fact. I never said Christians deserve more
> credence than any other religion. But you
> apparently do have a special hatred for
> Christianity. You believe what you want. I don't
> care what you do. Think whatever you want about
> those who believe in God and spew your judgemental
> nonsense here for all to see. Then babble about
> "special priviledges" while spouting intolerant
> pretzel logic. Your self-grandizing screeds say
> much more about you and your anti-Godhadist church
> of reason than anything I could write.

No special hatred for christianity here - I view you all as charlatans of the same quality until one or other of you can demonstrate some differentiating evidence.

And yes, I'm happy to be judgmental in the same way that I'm judgmental of all kinds of fraudsters from the Madoffs to the door-to-door granny rip-off merchants. While religious groups pursue laws which hurt society and expect special treatment, then yes, they deserve judgement

Still waiting for any evidence what-so-ever

bornagaindad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science can lead us in the direction of faith -
> they are both very useful things href="http://www.gifbin.com/982041"> src="http://gifs.gifbin.com/1232964987_we are
> small.gif" alt="funny gifs" />
Attachments:

Burn the bridges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Still waiting for any evidence what-so-ever

Recorded near death and after death experiences of an afterlife from tens of thousands of people. There's one. Miraculous health recoveries. There's two. People's lives being changed from reprobate to upstanding through no other reason that religious belief. There's three. The veracity of the Bible. There's four.

Now, do you have any evidence that the universe created itself as your church teaches?

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now, do you have any evidence that the universe
> created itself as your church teaches?


Can you point to a accepted, peer-reviewed scientific study that says the universe created itself? I read alot of science articles and have never heard of such a thing.

I think you are just making that up.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Burn the bridges Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Still waiting for any evidence what-so-ever
>
> Recorded near death and after death experiences of
> an afterlife from tens of thousands of people.
> There's one.

Nah - what you have are perceptions around the moment of death or near death - most likely associated with the brain closing down and trying to cope with misleading internal feeds - some drug users experience almost identical symptoms. There are already good partial explanations - and as neuro-science continues to accelerate over the next couple of decades, it seems pretty clear that we'll be able to pin down the full pathways - especially as we increasingly instrument death. No more evidence of reality than other visual or auditory hallucinations - real experiences but no evidence that they represent real phenomena.

> Miraculous health recoveries.
> There's two.

People recover or die from stuff all the time. Always have, always will. Our models of complex biological systems such as the immune system are still fragmentary but improving rapidly.

If you think that you have a real case, or a testable hypothesis/experiment - go collect your million dollars http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

>People's lives being changed from
> reprobate to upstanding through no other reason
> that religious belief. There's three.

A bit of a selective and circular example but there you go. Presumably the suicides of the solar temple, 9-11 and the sarin attacks on the tokyo metro would be equally good examples. Each of the religions must be the true one because it changed peoples life

No, wait....

>The
> veracity of the Bible. There's four.
>

We'll that's about as self-referential as it gets - the bible's true because the bible's true. Mmmmm....

Picking sides a bit aren't we? Not sure you're creation myths line up with all of the other religious texts and their incompatible takes on this, Presumably the Koran is equally true as it has the occasional historical fact in it? Just because Roman mythology references real places and some real figures doesn't mean that we should go back to reading entrails

> Now, do you have any evidence that the universe
> created itself as your church teaches?

Its bizarre that you keep claiming that science is a church - do you really think that gravity and the charge on an electron are local religious ordinances?

Modern cosmology provides extremely good evidence and models pointing back to the Big Bang - really extremely good (and much of it is stuff you can measure at home with a few thousand dollars of equipment) - as well as the scale and complexity of the universe and its processes.

Blow the bridges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> > Now, do you have any evidence that the universe
> > created itself as your church teaches?
>
> Its bizarre that you keep claiming that science is
> a church - do you really think that gravity and
> the charge on an electron are local religious
> ordinances?
>
> Modern cosmology provides extremely good evidence
> and models pointing back to the Big Bang - really
> extremely good (and much of it is stuff you can
> measure at home with a few thousand dollars of
> equipment) - as well as the scale and complexity
> of the universe and its processes.


As expected, you don't want evidence, you want proof. As any first year law student can tell you, proof is someone's interpretation of evidence and is completely subjective. As we saw in the OJ trial, most thought the evidence presented was proof that OJ killed his wife. But some, driven by their own filters of how they think, did not.

You didn't provide evidence that the universe was self created. You provided a theory on a transitional process of the universe from one state to the next. The big bang requires matter to support the theory (not nothingness). Models, theories, opinions. Is that your evidence? The four things I cited are things that actually occur. You can't even provide that much. It's so easy to believe only that which can been seen, touched, smelled. Shallow and lazy thinkers can not see beyond those things. The laziest of us don't even want to.

This is going nowhere fast. I've been down this road with posters on this board much better equipped to discuss science than you appear to be. Their ability to demonstrate deductive reasoning and logic also appear superior to yours. And their civility and lack of a condesending attitude most certainly surpass yours. In the end, we agreed to disagree. That is where I am with you. Believe what you want. It makes no difference to me until you try and stop me from believing what I want and stop me from talking about it in public.

In Bedrock, we believe that dinosaurs created God. Yabba Dabba Doooooooo

"You didn't provide evidence that the universe was self created. You provided a theory on a transitional process of the universe from one state to the next. The big bang requires matter to support the theory (not nothingness). Models, theories, opinions. Is that your evidence? The four things I cited are things that actually occur. You can't even provide that much. It's so easy to believe only that which can been seen, touched, smelled. Shallow and lazy thinkers can not see beyond those things. The laziest of us don't even want to."

What a load of shit.I hd a vision and God said you are full of BS. Really! Your words are the evidence.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Miraculous health recoveries. There's two.

Notice how this 'god' has never done things like regenerating a missing limb, endowing a genetic cure to eliminate Down's Syndrome within a child, or cure a starving person without the use of food. Those are things that would truly be miraculous.

Instead, those 'miraculous recoveries' are always things could have just gotten better anyway, and usually involved medicine (science).

Clearly GOD created everything, and absolute idiots that believe in the fairytale of evolution will learn that first hand when they reach hell. END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE FINAL WORD ON EVERYTHING!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> END OF
> DISCUSSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


good luck with that

cunt

Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Science

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1

Its no surprise that people of faith

1. Assume that people citing science believe it without reason (after all that is what people of faith do).

2. That the physical evidence or observations by science are flawed because they are not absolute - only faith is absolute because it can neither be proven nor disproven.

It is interesting to note that persons of Faith will often reject science because statistically it is not 100% perfect yet the things they believe are ultimately not provable at all. Climate science is only 97% certain there is man caused global warming therefore it cannot be believed yet belief in Jesus as the Son of God is 100% unprovable therefore it must be believed.

Faith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Definition of FAITH
> 1
> a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
> b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity
> of intentions
> 2
> a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2)
> : belief in the traditional doctrines of a
> religion
> b (1) : firm belief in something for which there
> is no proof (2) : complete trust
>
> Science
>
> Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")
> is a systematic enterprise that builds and
> organizes knowledge in the form of testable
> explanations and predictions about the
> universe.[1
>
> Its no surprise that people of faith
>
> 1. Assume that people citing science believe it
> without reason (after all that is what people of
> faith do).
>
> 2. That the physical evidence or observations by
> science are flawed because they are not absolute -
> only faith is absolute because it can neither be
> proven nor disproven.
>
> It is interesting to note that persons of Faith
> will often reject science because statistically it
> is not 100% perfect yet the things they believe
> are ultimately not provable at all. Climate
> science is only 97% certain there is man caused
> global warming therefore it cannot be believed yet
> belief in Jesus as the Son of God is 100%
> unprovable therefore it must be believed.


Hmm, interesting definition. Loyality is not faith. Allegiance is not faith. Faith precedes both loyality and allegiance.

Faith in science. Faith in God. Faith in both. Faith in neither. Faith in oneself. Faith also precedes hope. And all people should cling fast to whatever faith provides them with hope. One faith provides hope for knowledge, another provides hope for spirtual enlightment and eternal life. One faith provides knowledge, the other provides truth. Pick one. Pick neither. Pick both. I have chosen both. Neither have I chosen blindly and I know the truth (for me).

Again with the red herring of global warming as if that provides some kind of revelation to a bigger truth. It does not.

Your assertion that Christianity is 100% unprovable is incorrect. It is 100% unprovable to you. It is 100% provable to me. I live it. Just as a parents love is 100% unprovable but I know my parents love me.

Modern science exists in a paradigm of provability. Statistics have nothing to do with it. Your (mis)understanding of this basic premise of science is also something that "is interesting".

Those who live by the sword (provability) shall also die by it. Science is a tool. The quest for knowledge to make life better or to answer the questions of "why" or "how" is great. Science is a wonderful thing until it becomes a religion unto itself. Those who worship at the alter of science are the worst "scientists". They ignore contradictory evidence, embrace bad methodology, bully and ostracize and adopt all the most objectionable traits of any fanatic religious acolyte.

You build nice strawmen to substantiate your opinion. Dubious methodology to say the least.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Faith Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Definition of FAITH
> > 1
> > a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
> > b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) :
> sincerity
> > of intentions
> > 2
> > a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
> (2)
> > : belief in the traditional doctrines of a
> > religion
> > b (1) : firm belief in something for which
> there
> > is no proof (2) : complete trust
> >
> > Science
> >
> > Science (from Latin scientia, meaning
> "knowledge")
> > is a systematic enterprise that builds and
> > organizes knowledge in the form of testable
> > explanations and predictions about the
> > universe.[1
> >
> > Its no surprise that people of faith
> >
> > 1. Assume that people citing science believe it
> > without reason (after all that is what people
> of
> > faith do).
> >
> > 2. That the physical evidence or observations
> by
> > science are flawed because they are not absolute
> -
> > only faith is absolute because it can neither
> be
> > proven nor disproven.
> >
> > It is interesting to note that persons of Faith
> > will often reject science because statistically
> it
> > is not 100% perfect yet the things they believe
> > are ultimately not provable at all. Climate
> > science is only 97% certain there is man caused
> > global warming therefore it cannot be believed
> yet
> > belief in Jesus as the Son of God is 100%
> > unprovable therefore it must be believed.
>
>
> Hmm, interesting definition.

Its Websters definition. 'Interesting' sure but what is your point - it is THE definition. Honestly why are you so defensive?

600 years ago Trooth would have been using the same "logic" against things like heliocentrism and the "germ theory of disease".

Modern civilization should be glad it is free from this kind of outdated religious thinking. They are no longer an authority on anything.

Love Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 600 years ago Trooth would have been using the
> same "logic" against things like heliocentrism and
> the "germ theory of disease".
>
> Modern civilization should be glad it is free from
> this kind of outdated religious thinking. They
> are no longer an authority on anything.


Yes, because modern civilations are doing so well. A breakdown of the family. Rampant abuse of all things illicit. Cultures obsessed with sexual deviation and violence. Failing schools, falling academic standards and scores and murder in the classroom. An economy driven by unbridled greed. A populace of overweight, lazy, needy drones addicted to Honey Boo Boo. Without God, man will fill the vacuum with his own self interests. We are not evolving, we are devolving. The anti-Godhadists hate any authority but their own. That is the crux of their problem with God I believe.

so defensive Wrote:
-
>
> Its Websters definition. 'Interesting' sure but
> what is your point - it is THE definition.
> Honestly why are you so defensive?


Not defensive. Just pointing out flaws in your argument. Do you think that loyalty and faith are the same thing? Can you be loyal to someone or something without having faith in them/it? Can loyalty be coerced? How many people were loyal to Hitler because they feared for their lives? Can faith be coerced? And how many allegiances have been formed that have nothing to do with faith but everthing to do with promoting ones position. the other two definitions are relevant to the discussion here.

The crux of the problem with God is that he doesn't exist.

If I'm wrong, well then, we are helpless pawns to a cruel master.

Your loving God gives us cancer, severe weather, earthquakes, horrible physical and mental illnesses.

Thats love? You can keep it.

But continue to enjoy your own delusion.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Without God, man will fill the vacuum with his own self interests.
Attachments:

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The crux of the problem with God is that he
> doesn't exist.
>
> If I'm wrong, well then, we are helpless pawns to
> a cruel master.
>
> Your loving God gives us cancer, severe weather,
> earthquakes, horrible physical and mental
> illnesses.
>
> Thats love? You can keep it.
>
> But continue to enjoy your own delusion.


You misunderstand God. What makes you think He "gives us" these things? If someone doesn't stop something, did he then "give" it or cause it? If our own actions cause a consequence, is it the fault of everyone else because somewhere, someone could have done something? Are you a parent? If so, can you stop your kid(s) from doing ever thing that might hurt themselves? Do they listen to you all the time? Do they not have to face the consequences of their choices, even thought that is not what you wanted for them?

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BEH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The crux of the problem with God is that he
> > doesn't exist.
> >
> > If I'm wrong, well then, we are helpless pawns
> to
> > a cruel master.
> >
> > Your loving God gives us cancer, severe
> weather,
> > earthquakes, horrible physical and mental
> > illnesses.
> >
> > Thats love? You can keep it.
> >
> > But continue to enjoy your own delusion.
>
>
> You misunderstand God. What makes you think He
> "gives us" these things? If someone doesn't stop
> something, did he then "give" it or cause it? If
> our own actions cause a consequence, is it the
> fault of everyone else because somewhere, someone
> could have done something? Are you a parent? If
> so, can you stop your kid(s) from doing ever thing
> that might hurt themselves? Do they listen to you
> all the time? Do they not have to face the
> consequences of their choices, even thought that
> is not what you wanted for them?

mmmm...

so, through our choices we are responsible for

> > cancer, severe weather, earthquakes, horrible physical and mental illnesses.

but not climate change

okay - so I get it now

I'm beginning to understand God now.

He loves us, but if we don't do everything right, he sends us to eternal damnation.

Sometimes without knowing it, we give ourselves cancer.

But climate change is Gods responsibility , and tough if we don't like it.

Pretty confusing. I think I'll start to worship The Easter Bunny instead.

>
> Pretty confusing. I think I'll start to worship
> The Easter Bunny instead.


If you're going for an edible and nutritious deity - go all the way

http://www.venganza.org/

Anything less is just lilly-livered

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BEH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The crux of the problem with God is that he
> > doesn't exist.
> >
> > If I'm wrong, well then, we are helpless pawns
> to
> > a cruel master.
> >
> > Your loving God gives us cancer, severe
> weather,
> > earthquakes, horrible physical and mental
> > illnesses.
> >
> > Thats love? You can keep it.
> >
> > But continue to enjoy your own delusion.
>
>
> You misunderstand God. What makes you think He
> "gives us" these things? If someone doesn't stop
> something, did he then "give" it or cause it? If
> our own actions cause a consequence, is it the
> fault of everyone else because somewhere, someone
> could have done something? Are you a parent? If
> so, can you stop your kid(s) from doing ever thing
> that might hurt themselves? Do they listen to you
> all the time? Do they not have to face the
> consequences of their choices, even thought that
> is not what you wanted for them?

Trooth,

No one minds that you pray and believe in God. Science/industry provide you with modern housing to live in, you drive its cars, talk on its phones, write on its internet and let its medicines heal you. You fly in planes when you wish to travel. These things are not 100% reliable or effective yet you choose to believe they will work (as they most often do) when it suits your desires and needs.

Yet you reject other scientific facts and conclusions and you expect us to give you any currency beyond the improbable. This could be hypocrisy and/or delusion but it is certainly not sound reasoning.

pleasejustpray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Trooth,
>
> No one minds that you pray and believe in God.
> Science/industry provide you with modern housing
> to live in, you drive its cars, talk on its
> phones, write on its internet and let its
> medicines heal you. You fly in planes when you
> wish to travel. These things are not 100%
> reliable or effective yet you choose to believe
> they will work (as they most often do) when it
> suits your desires and needs.
>
> Yet you reject other scientific facts and
> conclusions and you expect us to give you any
> currency beyond the improbable. This could be
> hypocrisy and/or delusion but it is certainly not
> sound reasoning.


Your post is full of incorrect assumptions. I don't reject science. I've written that about 10 times. What can you anti-Godhadists not comprehend about that?

Of course I reject some scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions are based on theories and observation. Do you believe every scientific theory out there? If so, how do you reconcile conflicting theories? When the scientific theories seem implausible or the methodology is questionable, everyone should look with suspicion on the conclusion. Your use of the term "scientific fact" is interesting. A scientific fact is something that is accepted as true by predictive behavior in observable, repeated testing. The earth is flat was once a "scientific fact". The sun rotating around the earth was as well. Recently, the universe is only expanding was accepted as a scientific fact. Now, it seems that the universe might be expanding in some parts and contracting in others. That being written, I accept any "scientific fact" as true as long as it is well supported, plausible and has followed a solid mthodology.

It could be hypocritical (or delusional) if what you wrote was based on truth. But, it is not. I really do not care what currency you give my opinions. They are well reasoned, defensible and logical. I'm not the emotional one here. It is the anti-Godhadists who curse, engage in juvenile behavior and spew hate and derision. This is as it always is on this board.

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pleasejustpray Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Trooth,
> >
> > No one minds that you pray and believe in God.
> > Science/industry provide you with modern
> housing
> > to live in, you drive its cars, talk on its
> > phones, write on its internet and let its
> > medicines heal you. You fly in planes when you
> > wish to travel. These things are not 100%
> > reliable or effective yet you choose to believe
> > they will work (as they most often do) when it
> > suits your desires and needs.
> >
> > Yet you reject other scientific facts and
> > conclusions and you expect us to give you any
> > currency beyond the improbable. This could be
> > hypocrisy and/or delusion but it is certainly
> not
> > sound reasoning.
>
>
> Your post is full of incorrect assumptions. I
> don't reject science. Strawman -the poster went out of his way to state that you reject 'other scientific facts and conclusions' -they never said you reject science so why do you claim that? I've written that about 10
> times. What can you anti-Godhadists not
> comprehend about that? you presume to know the poster's beliefs in God - he never mentioned his beliefs. You sir prejudge the poster by some unknown association, that is unfair
>
> Of course I reject some scientific
> conclusions. Scientific conclusions are based on
> theories and observation. Do you believe every
> scientific theory out there?Strawman the poster never said or implied this If so, how do you
> reconcile conflicting theories? Rhetorical see above When the
> scientific theories seem implausible or the
> methodology is questionable, everyone should look
> with suspicion on the conclusion. Your use of the
> term "scientific fact" is interesting. A
> scientific fact is something that is accepted as
> true by predictive behavior in observable,
> repeated testing. The earth is flat was once a
> "scientific fact". False most learned persons believed the earth was spherical since the Ancient Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth The sun rotating around the
> earth was as well. False those were philosophers not modern scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Recently, the universe is only
> expanding was accepted as a scientific fact. Now,
> it seems that the universe might be expanding in
> some parts and contracting in others. That being
> written, I accept any "scientific fact" as true as
> long as it is well supported, plausible and has
> followed a solid mthodology. so why do you reject climate science? You reject it because of wild conspiracy theories like your statement that thousands of scientists in the field are ruled over by 4 Nazis
>
> It could be hypocritical (or delusional) if what
> you wrote was based on truth. But, it is not. your statement carries no weight as it relies above on only strawman arguments - a likely indication you have no logical grounds to stand on. I
> really do not care what currency you give my
> opinions. They are well reasoned, defensible and
> logical. no I believe you have made no valid arguments in denying climate science yet you are insistent about its error. You give the appearance of being reasonable because you concede the obvious axioms about science (that it evolves through its own observations) but offer false assertions about the Flat Earth and Geocentric models. You cannot even be intellectually honest about history. You claim to know the Faith of those whom argue against you without any reason or cause. I'm not the emotional one here. It is
> the anti-Godhadists who curse, engage in juvenile
> behavior and spew hate and derision. This is as
> it always is on this board.

And finally you do most certainly care what currency your view point is given or you would not spend such time attempting (in vain) to defend it...

Trooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The earth is flat was once a "scientific fact".

It was never a "scientific fact". It was a belief. Much like your religion.

Ancient people looked around, and without knowledge or tools of discovery, assumed and accepted that the earth was flat. There was no science about it.

It wasn't until the [non-christian] Greeks began to apply mathematics to their astronomical observations that they realized those beliefs were wrong.

They didn't rely on Zeus, Apollo, or any of the popular religious texts of the time. They investigated and worked diligently to reach factual conclusions.

GodLovesU

He's got a strange way of showing it.

heres an idea, dont like what the teacher/babysitter teaches your kids? RAISE YOUR OWN KIDS. when you give the government the responsibility of raising your kids, they will teach them what they want to teach them