|
Quote: I'll drink 'em for you!
Fall in line - behind me!
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
In descending order of reputation sounds fair to me... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Depends. Which one of you can drink the most?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I can drink much more than I can afford, so I end up hardly drinking at all! 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
M Sukhdeep wrote: Poetic and spiritual meanings escape them.
Hardly! I find J.S Bach's St Matthew passion to be one of the most beautiful pieces of music and libretto ever written and I do not believe in a creator God.
I also appreciate Rumi's poetry.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
And yet, having two brain hemispheres working independently, you are a conscious being able to appreciate abstract meanings. That proves beyond a doubt that humans are more than flesh and bone, but an eternal soul.
If that were not the car, we would all be 2 or 3 conscious beings in one body due to the different physical brain regions.
|
|
|
|
|
M Sukhdeep wrote: And yet, having two brain hemispheres working independently, you are a conscious being able to appreciate abstract meanings. That proves beyond a doubt that humans are more than flesh and bone, but an eternal soul.
OK, that's an assertion. Prove it. First, define exactly what an "eternal soul" is and then prove it exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nah mate. The link you supplied no more proves the existence of a soul than it proves how computers work or how Elon's cars are assembled.
Return to go, do NOT collect $200
Don't worry, you'll get the hang of Code Project in a year or two.
|
|
|
|
|
That only thing that proves is someone knows the basics of HTML. It doesn't prove a damn thing as far as the subject goes. It's just a ton of assertions, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
If you reach the end of an algebra problem, and realize your answer is "1=2", you know that you miscalculated somewhere, because the answer is BY DEFINITION wrong.
Likewise, if you figure through your world view that the 9/11 hijackers, or the sandy hook shooter, who endeavored to commit evil then escape unpunished, if you believe that they succeeded in that endeavor due to the absence of an eternal soul to endure punishment, then you know you have a problem somewhere, because it cannot by definition be a GOOD world view if it allows evil to go unpunished.
|
|
|
|
|
And you STILL haven't proven a damn thing.
|
|
|
|
|
HOW has this proven nothing?
How is it possible to be a good person, and believe that there is no eternal soul or accountability after death, that evil can actually win...
|
|
|
|
|
I already told you. It's a ton of assertions. Perhaps you need to go look up the definition of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
No, going against common knowledge of thousands of years, and asserting that humans are not a spiritual being is the assertion which you have not proven.
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing common about "common knowledge" is it is really "common assumption".
EDIT: In the first six sentences of "Creation" alone, there are 10 vague assertions and not a shred of evidence to any of them. For example:
1) What is "God"? How do you define and prove this?
2) What is "Spirit"? How do you define and prove this?
3) He is infinite. OK, how do you prove this? What is your evidence?
4) He is eternal. OK, how do you prove this? What is your evidence?
5) He has always existed. OK, how prove this? What is your evidence?
6) He is without bounds. OK, what does that even mean? What is your evidence?
7) He is "all". OK, what the $#&^$ does that even mean?
8) He is all powerful. Do I really have to keep repeating myself?
9) He is all knowing. Again...
10) He is the beginning. Beginning of what? How does this relate to "always existed"? What is your proof?
11) He is the end. Same as 10.
Do I really have to keep going? I can rip apart the entire page like this and you are struggling to try and prove even a single word of it.
I have made no claims that humans NOT being spiritual beings (this is called a NEGATIVE claim). I have also not made any claim that we are. YOU have (POSITIVE claim).
You accused me of making a NEGATIVE claim. Negative claims can never be proved true. On the other hand, you have made the POSITIVE claim that humans are spiritual beings. The burden of proof is on you to define exactly what a "spiritual being" is and how to test this is true.
|
|
|
|
|
YOUR assertion is that there is a lack of evidence for God.
But Hebrews 11 verse 1 states Now faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen
Atheist claims always boils down to a lack of substance "I can't see feel or touch God", and evidence. But this just an admission of your lack of the virtue Faith. By having faith in God that IS the evidence for God.
|
|
|
|
|
M Sukhdeep wrote: YOUR assertion is that there is a lack of evidence for God.
You can easily prove me wrong by providing some.
M Sukhdeep wrote: But Hebrews 11 verse 1 states
Yet another assertion. You cannot use an assertion to prove an assertion. The Bible is nothing but assertions, cover to cover.
God himself could appear on Earth and it won't be sufficient proof of God. Why? How do we know that's God? God got id issued by a verifiable authority? How do we know it's not just some alien posing as God?
You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence.
Unsubscribe.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: You can easily prove me wrong by providing some.
Correct. But you have to make the effort. And if you do, then you'll have more evidence than you even understood exisited.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have to make any effort at all outside of evaluating and verifying what is presented as evidence.
I'm not taking the position that there is or is not evidence. I take the center position that no evidence has been presented that passes for evidence and passes any verifiable tests. There have been mere assertions. Stories handed down over the centuries and presented to the next generation as fact under the heading of "because I told you its true".
Well, I'm asking the question, "How do you know it's true?"
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I don't have to make any effort at all outside of evaluating and verifying what is presented as evidence.
Can you know if a cake tastes good without doing anything? No.
You have to make an effort to find out if god is real or not. How? Prayer is a huge part of it. You receive a witness through feelings and impressions. But you have to put forth the effort. It will not be forced on you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Can you know if a cake tastes good without doing anything? No.
A completely inaccurate example. Whether or not a cake "tastes good" is completely subjective, nothing more than an opinion. This is not evidence, it is yet another assertion. You may say the cake tastes good but I have an 8 year old who would argue otherwise.
I wasn't asking for an opinion if there was a god. I'm asking for the presentation of testable and verifiable evidence of such.
And, no, I don't have to taste the cake myself. I can just sit back and watch you taste it, wait for you to tell me "it tastes good" and then throw out what you're presenting as "evidence" because its just your opinion that it "tastes good".
RyanDev wrote: You have to make an effort to find out if god is real or not. How? Prayer is a huge part of it. You receive a witness through feelings and impressions. But you have to put forth the effort. It will not be forced on you.
You've got to be joking. Again, what you get back in exchange for this "prayer" is completely subjective and not any less opinionated than the cake "tasting good".
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: A completely inaccurate example. Whether or not a cake "tastes good" is completely subjective, nothing more than an opinion.
You're dodging the point again. 
OK, does the cake taste like a strawberry cake to you? There, that can't be done until you do something.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: what you get back in exchange for this "prayer" is completely subjective and not any less opinionated than the cake "tasting good".
Spoken exactly like someone who has never done it. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: You're dodging the point again.
No, I'm not. I'm explaining the flaw in your logic.
RyanDev wrote: Spoken exactly like someone who has never done it
And you sound like someone who has guzzled the kool-aid.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, this part of the exchange has in no way invalidated what I said.
If you want to believe that God spoke to you through prayer, fine. I really don't care. It's when you start forcing others to live by your interpretation of the Bible that we're going to have a big problem. For example, "religious liberty", gays choosing to be the way they are instead of being born that way and vilifying them for it, teaching the Bible in Science class as if it withstood the same rigors science content has to (hint: it hasn't and can't), and a long, long list of other problems religion has.
I will not argue that, on an individual scale, religion doesn't have its uses and appeals. For me, I need no such crutch for living my life.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
