judge not moving 10 commandments statue from u.s.a. gov. property

"WHO ARE YOU TO ASK GOD TO PROVE HIMSELF?"

I am the axeman :D


"YES.....YOU ONLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE...."

To the contrary. I believe in lot's of things I have never
seen as long as their is sufficient evidence.

"EVER SEE A MILLION BUCKS, PERONALLY IN YOUR HAND? DOES THAT MEAN THERE ARE NO MILLIONAIRES?"

No. Of course it doesn't mean there are no million dollar bills.

However, the bible no more proves the existence of god,
than the Illiad proves the existence of Zeus.

A mere story, written by unknown men, full of contradictions,
about a man god, who left no personal artifacts, who was written
about many years after the fact, by ANY measure, does not
constitute sufficient proof for a claim as grand as the
existence of a god.


peace

axeman
 
The problem with this and any so-called controlled experiment regarding prayer is that there can be no such thing as a controlled experiment concerning prayer. You can never divide people into groups that received prayer and those that did not. The main reason is that there is no way to know that someone did not receive prayer. How would anyone know that some distant relative was not praying for a member of the group that Byrd had identified as having received no prayer? How does one control for prayers said on behalf of all the sick people in the world? How does one assess the degree of faith in patients that are too sick to be interviewed or in the persons performing the prayers? Even Byrd acknowledges these problems and admits that "'pure' groups were not attained in this study." [8] Since control groups are not possible, such purported scientific experiments are not possible.
Avalos
__________________________________________

From an earlier reference. Talk about a weak argument against the studies "they just can't be done." If that isn't typical of the secular-huminist position what is. A circular argument that just absolutely proves them correct.
 
"WHO ARE YOU TO ASK GOD TO PROVE HIMSELF?"

I am the axeman
______________________________________

This is the core of the issue. Some people consider themselves to be equal to God and others don't. But to take that position you have to deny the existence of God. Comes along with intellectual pride, self centeredness, a need to always be right, and the need to prove yourself better.:)
 
This proves zeus as much as the christian god.
In fact, all religions who have a god that claim created
the earth and man can make the very same claim.
How is yours any different?

All the people in the world are not evidence for the
existence of any gods. There is no correlation.
Evolution explains the same phenomenon, and yet,
at least provides some evidence for it.


peace

axeman


Quote from TM_Direct:

there were many artifacts .....billions in fact.......all the people in the world....
More...
 
How is this weak?

It clearly shows that his control group was not a control group.
He even admits it himself.

Maybe you believe control groups are NOT required
in double blind studies? :D

If a scientist was testing for the positive effect of a
new medicine, and it was discovered that his control
group that was supposed to be taking the placebo, was
actually ALSO taking the real medication, the study would
be thrown out the window.

Please explain why Byrd's study is SPECIAL, and should
not be held up to the same standards as other scientists studies.


Oh yeah.... the study wasn't even double blind.
Yet another flaw.

peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

The problem with this and any so-called controlled experiment regarding prayer is that there can be no such thing as a controlled experiment concerning prayer. You can never divide people into groups that received prayer and those that did not. The main reason is that there is no way to know that someone did not receive prayer. How would anyone know that some distant relative was not praying for a member of the group that Byrd had identified as having received no prayer? How does one control for prayers said on behalf of all the sick people in the world? How does one assess the degree of faith in patients that are too sick to be interviewed or in the persons performing the prayers? Even Byrd acknowledges these problems and admits that "'pure' groups were not attained in this study." [8] Since control groups are not possible, such purported scientific experiments are not possible.
Avalos
__________________________________________

From an earlier reference. Talk about a weak argument against the studies "they just can't be done." If that isn't typical of the secular-huminist position what is. A circular argument that just absolutely proves them correct.
More...
 
How can I be equal to an entity that we don't even
know exists???

Would you consider it intellectuall pride to ask
ZEUS to prove himself to you?


Would you????????????? Please answer this question.


This has nothing to do with pride, or the need to be right.
Theists always like to pull this psycho babble out in an
attempt to discredit the non-theist.

It is rational to question everything. Even mythical gods.


peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

"WHO ARE YOU TO ASK GOD TO PROVE HIMSELF?"

I am the axeman
______________________________________

This is the core of the issue. Some people consider themselves to be equal to God and others don't. But to take that position you have to deny the existence of God. Comes along with intellectual pride, self centeredness, a need to always be right, and the need to prove yourself better.:)
More...
 
How is this weak?
____________________________________

Because the statement states that a study of this type is not possible. First you ask for a scientific study and then say one cannot be done. Convenient but dishonest. The case is getting stronger for "You won't believe without supernatural and you won't believe with supernatural." Why not be honest and just say I won't believe no matter what because no matter what we come up with you already know it won't be good enough. Obviously Christians don't hold a monopoly on prejudice.
____________________________________

Would you consider it intellectuall pride to ask
ZEUS to prove himself to you?
__________________________________

Do you know what intellectual pride is?
_____________________________________

This has nothing to do with pride, or the need to be right.
Theists always like to pull this psycho babble out in an
attempt to discredit the non-theist.

It is rational to question everything. Even mythical gods
____________________________________

This has everything to do with pride and the need to be right read you own posts.

It is rational to question everything but why is it even necessary with a closed and prejudiced mind. It has way more to do with the proving personal things than seeking truth.
 
" the symbols of the divine show up in our world initially at the trash stratum.... "

phillip k dick "valis"


as i have stated multiple times previously, science cannot explain existence. regardless of axeman's verbal acuity, one needs to move beyond the scientific when dealing with questions of the self, existence, and eternity. the answers are there for the taking.....

best,

surfer
 
axe:How is this weak?

Doubter:Because the statement states that a study of this type is not possible. First you ask for a scientific study and then say one cannot be done. Convenient but dishonest.

Nothing dishonest here. They are basically saying that he
will have to find another way and not use this flawed method.
There are all kinds of studies which are very difficult to properly
set up in double blind studies.
This requires researchers to be more creative.
Religious researches do NOT get a free card to twist the rules here.
People who test for the effectiveness of acupuncture run
into similar problems. How do you have a control group
and study group for acupuncture??? Obviously, the group
that is receiving the acupuncture WILL KNOW IT :D
They do not get to SKIRT the rules just because its difficult.



"The case is getting stronger for "You won't believe without supernatural and you won't believe with supernatural." Why not be honest and just say I won't believe no matter what because no matter what we come up with you already know it won't be good enough. Obviously Christians don't hold a monopoly on prejudice."

False. Your choice of terms are very confusing.
If you are saying that I wont believe in god without very
strong evidence (which you seem to be calling supernatural evidence)
then you are correct. That is proper.

Saying I wont believe no matter what would be dishonest.
I simply require what all rational men require before I believe:
Relatively SUFFICIENT evidence for the claim being made.

Remember....
Big claim ---> requires big evidence. (Call it supernatural, or whatever)
Small claim --> requires small evidence.

You however expect me to swallow the biggest claim fathomable
with VERY little, or NO evidence. This is irrational.


"axe:Would you consider it intellectual pride to ask
ZEUS to prove himself to you?

Doubter:
Do you know what intellectual pride is?"

Stop dodging the question. Answer my question first.

"This has everything to do with pride and the need to be right read you own posts."

It is NOT relevant to the discussion at all.
Even if I were FULL OF intellectual pride, this does NOT in
any way magically invalidate my position, so you can just
drop the psycho babble right here and now.


"It is rational to question everything but why is it even necessary with a closed and prejudiced mind. It has way more to do with the proving personal things than seeking truth. "

False. There is nothing closed or prejudiced with my mind.
You simply want me to bend my own critical thinking rules
and accept your fanciful claims over sciences claims which
must pass extreme scrutiny within the scientific community.

Why should I be so BIASED and accept these grand
claims without evidence? If anyone has intellectual pride
issues and is closeminded, it is the THEIST who *KNOWS*
he is right and does not even ALLOW for the possibility
of being wrong.

Do you freely ADMIT the possibility of god not existing?
Most theists dont seem to.

The vast majority of scientists, I would wager, will allow
for the possibility of a god or gods or unicorns.

peace

axeman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top