Religion is a hypothesis.

Quote from Index piker:

That's funny because I kicked your ass all over the place in our last discussion.
More...

LOL you exclaimed how terrible it was to have a low USD but you couldn't even form an argument as to why you thought that way. And then you insulted me for using "economic goofy speak" when you couldn't understand what I was saying because you have no grasp of economics. Maybe they will teach you something once you graduate high school.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

well well well you certainly know how to make a great cut'n'paste argument CO LOL :D

the problem is you don't OWN any of it! hahaha :D
More...

And If I don't provide some supporting evidence you'd be asking for that. Stu and Vhehn are ready to engage in intelligent debate. You simply throw insults and wild eyed accusations. I guess natural selection will always miss a few.:eek:
 
Quote from stu:

A substantial knowledge of fact based theory supporting a natural event of point of zero volume, with very high mass and infinite density

OR

A supernatural magical uncaused invisible imaginary myth fairy sky friend cloud daddy. .



yeah... no more preposterous to anyone who can no longer think past religion
More...

All things, forces, occurances are part of the Natural world. Nothing is Supernatural. Just super misunderstood.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:


Evidence Against
Age
More...
oh man. not another 6000 year old earth believer. where did education go wrong?

you need to spend some time here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Index to Creationist Claims

CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
•CE000: Earth
•CE001. There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth.
•CE010. NASA scientists found a day missing.
•CE011. Earth's rotation is slowing, indicating a young earth.
•CE011.1. The frequency of leap seconds indicates a young earth.
•CE020. An old earth would be covered by 182 feet of meteoric dust.
•CE100: Moon
•CE101. There is not enough moon dust for an old universe.
•CE110. The moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe.
•CE130. Lunar moonquakes, lava flows, and gas emissions indicates the moon's youth.
•(see also CF220: Short-lived U-326, Th-230 found on moon.)
•CE200: Planets and Solar System
•CE210. Venus's high temperature and atmosphere should have eroded its surface features.
•CE230. Io's great volcanic activity indicates a young age.
•CE231. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling too rapidly to be old.
•CE240. Saturn's rings are unstable.
•CE260. Three planets and several moons revolve backwards.
•CE260.1. Retrograde motion of planets disproves the big bang.
•CE261. Comets would not have lasted in an old universe.
•CE261.1. Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are ad hoc fantasies of astronomers.
•CE280. Solar wind should have cleared the inner solar system of microparticles.
•CE281. The Poynting-Robertson effect would remove space dust in an old solar system.
•CE300: Sun and Stars
•CE301. The lack of solar neutrinos indicates that the stellar model is wrong.
•CE302. The sun has most of the mass but little angular momentum of the solar system.
•CE310. A shrinking sun indicates a young sun.
•CE310.1. Helmholtz's contraction theory says the sun is young.
•CE311. The faint young sun paradox contradicts an old earth.
•CE351. Sirius was a red star 2,000 years ago and is a white dwarf now.
•CE380. Galaxies should lose their spiral shape over millions of years.
•CE400: Cosmology
•(see also CI300: Anthropic principle)
•CE401. There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe.
•CE410. Physical constants are only assumed constant.
•CE411. The speed of light has changed.
•CE411.1. Physicists found that the speed of light was once faster.
•CE412. Gravitational time dilation made distant clocks run faster.
•(see also CF210: Radiometric dating assumes constant rates.)
•CE420. The big bang theory is wrong.
•CE421. The cosmos has an axis, contrary to big bang models.
•CE425. Red shift comes from light aging, not expansion of the universe.
•CE440. Where did space, time, energy, and laws of physics come from?
•CE441. Explosions such as the big bang do not produce order or information.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

And If I don't provide some supporting evidence you'd be asking for that. Stu and Vhehn are ready to engage in intelligent debate. You simply throw insults and wild eyed accusations. I guess natural selection will always miss a few.:eek:
More...

what proof do you require to disbelieve in god? are you going to continue to ignore my question.. man up! :D
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

what proof do you require to disbelieve in god? are you going to continue to ignore my question.. man up! :D
More...

That's an interesting question, which surprises me coming from someone with the intellect of a single cell prokaryote.:eek: :eek: :eek:
My initial thought was that man would have to create a universe himself, but then that wouldn't necessarily prove anything in regard to a God, other than maybe God ain't all that after all. I think I'd have to personally see and meet someone that has been dead, and I mean really dead for awhile, like days. That person, or what ever that persons form would take, would have to tell me...buddy, there ain't nothing out there but space. But as I give it some more thought I'm not sure that would suffice. I guess, if I'm honest, the proof will come when I bite the dust myself.
I guess it comes down to this. If God appeared you'd have no choice but to acknowledge that existence, assuming you weren't high or crazy. If no God ever appears then what's left is scientific research, or ones own faith. Both provide little in the way of actual proof of anything other than ones own bias, one way or the other. The atheist will say the proof is in the science, but science can't replicate the event. The creationist will say the proof is all around us...life itself. But that leaves the question unanswered as well. At the end of the day we'll all play our hand the best way we see fit, and what I think is really cool about it is that at the end of the game everyone cashes out with the same thing...nothing but your own sorry ass, hopefully with few regrets of mis-played hands, and fond memories of the interesting people you met around the table.
 
Quote from stu:

jem,
You have no capacity for discussion or argument without making wrong statements, being self-contradictory, not listening to what is being said in opposition to your view, and stating things that are only in your imagination. No one is more emotional here than yourself. You swear and curse ,call names, make ad hominem , jump to conclusions and you don't listen to a thing. Scientists can say or think what they like but it is Science which will support their theories or reject them, prove them right or wrong. Big Bang theory is scientific but there are different models of Big Bang events. It is clear you understand little about the Science of Big Bang but just want to make silly controversies , misinformation and disconnects. And did I say , you don't listen.
As far as I am aware neither vhehn nor I have ever stated no "God" exists. I cannot say nor would I ever state categorically that no Fairies or Leprechauns exist. So why not stop saying things that are not true about what I do say? Although vhehn can speak for himself, I have said over and over there are no reasons why there should or would be a Creator or God whatever as far as I am concerned. The ideas put forward in support of such a thing are often childish, superstitious and quite honestly bizarre, especially in your case. That is a world of difference to saying categorically there is or is not a God. It requires no belief and no other information than to understand the argument for a Creator sounds totally preposterous and nonsensical. Did I say you don’t listen?
More...


I appreciate the concession but not your recall.

for instance on a elitetrader -


08-16-09 10:33 PM

....
Quote from jem:
You can not prove there is no God.

Quote from Stu:

I can prove there is no God . You cannot prove I can't.
....

you have made statements like that multiple times. Its why I called you an academic piece of shit so many times. You had no desire for a legitimate debate on this topic until now.

And now since you now admit you can not prove there is no God. We agree. Only a zealous faith filled atheist would asset that they know there is no God. As not even Stu would say that.

There is no more debate with me on this subject. I have never said I can prove there is a God. I have just been saying Atheism takes faith.

Bartender -- a round of stout. this one is over.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

That's an interesting question, which surprises me coming from someone with the intellect of a single cell prokaryote.:eek: :eek: :eek:
My initial thought was that man would have to create a universe himself, but then that wouldn't necessarily prove anything in regard to a God, other than maybe God ain't all that after all. I think I'd have to personally see and meet someone that has been dead, and I mean really dead for awhile, like days. That person, or what ever that persons form would take, would have to tell me...buddy, there ain't nothing out there but space. But as I give it some more thought I'm not sure that would suffice. I guess, if I'm honest, the proof will come when I bite the dust myself.
I guess it comes down to this. If God appeared you'd have no choice but to acknowledge that existence, assuming you weren't high or crazy. If no God ever appears then what's left is scientific research, or ones own faith. Both provide little in the way of actual proof of anything other than ones own bias, one way or the other. The atheist will say the proof is in the science, but science can't replicate the event. The creationist will say the proof is all around us...life itself. But that leaves the question unanswered as well. At the end of the day we'll all play our hand the best way we see fit, and what I think is really cool about it is that at the end of the game everyone cashes out with the same thing...nothing but your own sorry ass, hopefully with few regrets of mis-played hands, and fond memories of the interesting people you met around the table.
More...

Interesting post.

Why does god only show himself when we die? Who is to say we would even see god when we die?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top