|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: No, I'm not.
Sure you are. But since you don't think you are, my guess is you don't know what the point is then. So, nevermind. No point now if you still don't get it after this many exchanges. 
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: gays choosing to be the way they are instead of being born that way and vilifying them for it,
I haven't done that, have I?
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: teaching the Bible in Science class as if it withstood the same rigors science content has to
Who teaches the Bible in Science class? Perhaps this is a UK vs. USA issue? Not sure where you're getting some of these things from.
And how about evolution? It's taught in science and has no solid backing. (I know you'll disagree with that, so probably no point in my even bringing it up.  )
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I need no such crutch for living my life.
If a religion is a crutch, then clearly it is not the correct religion. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: I haven't done that, have I?
Where did I say YOU did? All I said was religion paints them in that light.
RyanDev wrote: Who teaches the Bible in Science class?
The entire Bible Belt of the U.S. is quietly doing it right now and trying to expand what they teach. The Texas State Board of Education is re-writing textbooks to their standards which include the Bible as factual history and science and white-washing the history of the United States to paint the county in a shade of "American Exceptionalism", completely ignoring the mistakes we've made.
RyanDev wrote: And how about evolution? It's taught in science and has no solid backing.
No solid backing? Evolution has such a huge pile of evidence behind it that it's the most supported scientific theory in all of the sciences. To say otherwise is just willful disregard.
RyanDev wrote: If a religion is a crutch, then clearly it is not the correct religion.
When I said "religion" I meant all of them, not just yours.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Where did I say YOU did? All I said was religion paints them in that light.
I am religious and you are generalizing.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: The entire Bible Belt of the U.S. is quietly doing it right now
Must be very quiet. I live in the Bible belt and none of the schools my kids go to teach the Bible.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: white-washing the history of the United States to paint the county in a shade of "American Exceptionalism", completely ignoring the mistakes we've made.
That has always been the case and has nothing to do with the Bible or even with religion. 
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Evolution has such a huge pile of evidence
Shared/similar DNA? That also supports a creator just as equally. Note that evolution has never been observed.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: When I said "religion" I meant all of them, not just yours.
I know. Again generalizing. My point is, there is a God, and he has a true church and it is not a crutch but an aid and a help. Unless you consider teaching not to kill people a crutch. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: I am religious and you are generalizing.
Damn right I am!
RyanDev wrote: Must be very quiet. I live in the Bible belt and none of the schools my kids go to teach the Bible.
Just because it doesn't happen in your school doesn't mean it's not happening in others. This is a small sampling of what's going on around you:
Alabama Teacher Distributed Bibles to Her Fifth Graders in Class, Says Atheist Group[^]
Teacher in Arkansas Suspended for Showing Passion of the Christ in Class[^]
Christian Teachers Group Sees Schools as ‘Mission Fields’[^]
The Arkansas Teacher Story Gets Even Worse[^]
A Teacher Who Led Students Out of a Religious Assembly May Be Fired After Accusations of Racism[^]
Elementary School Science Teacher Sends Kids Home with an Invitation to Christian Summer Camp[^]
Substitute Leaves Note on Teacher’s Lesson Plan Urging Him to Expose Students to Creationism[^]
Texas School District Continues to Promote Christianity in Classrooms Despite Multiple Warnings[^]
Georgia Teacher Forces Teen to Swear On Bible That She Is Not Pregnant[^]
A Teacher in the South[^]
Teachers: You can be punished if you teach evolution – Greg Laden's Blog[^]
Central Oregon High School Teacher Fired For Teaching Creationism - New West[^]
Bill would allow teachers to promote creationism[^]
Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design in Public Schools[^]
Creationism in Louisiana public school science classes: School boards and teachers teach the controversy.[^]
Louisiana School Defends Using the Bible to 'Present Alternative Viewpoints' When Teaching Evolution[^]
NEA - Will Texas Decide What's In Your Textbook?[^]
Log In - The New York Times[^]
Texas Board of Education Revises Textbooks: Slaves were 'Unpaid Interns' - Newslo[^]
Texas Board Of Education Member Dismisses Outrage Over Textbooks Calling Slaves ‘Workers’ | ThinkProgress[^]
How Texas Teaches History - The New York Times[^]
Outspoken Education Board Candidate Headed to Runoff | The Texas Tribune[^]
RyanDev wrote: That has always been the case and has nothing to do with the Bible or even with religion.
Oh really? Those changes were demanded by the Texas State Board of Education, consisting of wall-to-wall right-wing conservatives, and against criticism from scholars, researchers, educators, and the public. According to the TSBOE, Moses is a founding father of the United States. That's just one example of a large list of changes they demanded to textbooks, including downplaying the KKK's violence against blacks, removing all mention of Jim Crow, and removing all mention of Thomas Jefferson's emphasis on the separation of church and state. This has nothing to do with religion? It has everything to do with the promotion of a Christian-twisted agenda of "American Exceptionalism". Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.
RyanDev wrote: Shared/similar DNA? That also supports a creator just as equally.
You'll have to explain how that proves a God and don't start with the "it's too complex" bullshit. That's been debunked over and over and over again.
RyanDev wrote: Note that evolution has never been observed.
Nice strawman you setup there. On the scale that relious people who bring this up want to see, this is correct. We can't observe it happening on human time scales. It takes thousands, tens of thousands, hundres of thousands of generations of an organism to produce a new variant of a species. But to produce a change where we once had gills and how we don't takes millions of generations. Considering we only live for about 80 years and those kind of changes take millions of years to occur, no, we haven't directly observed anything like that and never will.
RyanDev wrote: Unless you consider teaching not to kill people a crutch.
Again, damn right I'm generalizing. All you have to do is offer up evidence, and not assertions, that there is a God and you'll convert the planet. Until then, the world will continue to be embroiled in the ever present war of opinion where everyone (except Atheists of course) assert that they are following the one true religion and one true God.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: You'll have to explain how that proves a God
Reread what I wrote.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: It takes thousands, tens of thousands, hundres of thousands of generations of an organism to produce a new variant of a species. But to produce a change where we once had gills and how we don't takes millions of generations.
I see. It's "too complex." 
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: All you have to do is offer up evidence, and not assertions, that there is a God and you'll convert the planet.
Now we're back to one of the original points. That's why we share and proselytize.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Spit out the penis and step away from the keyboard.
You are like a retarded toddler that has overheard something their parents have said. You don't understand a damn thing but are happy to stand out in public proudly spouting utter shite.
Well done.
If you have anything to say, this time reply here, don't send me little Jeesssuuuuzzzzz whinings in a direct email.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Prove it. First, define exactly what an "eternal soul" is and then prove it exists.
Prove to me that love exists.
Good luck.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
What kind of "love"?
The concept is quite ambiguous and varies from culture to culture, even in the same culture throughout its history. 
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: What kind of "love"?
The point is (which I believe you tried to ignore  ) that you cannot prove love exists, yet it does.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't avoiding anything. The question was fair.
But, does it really exist in a physical form or is it strictly an abstract concept? Is it a "feeling" (what is a feeling anyway?) or a collective of actions or some combination of both? Is it something else?
There are people who can't "feel" the same things the average population does or describes something different from the consensus description of a feeling, such as "love". Is this because of some physical/chemical defect in the brain or is it a "nurture" problem or something what?
Given the nature of how the brain works, I'd lean toward a physical and functional representation in the brain. Destroy certain parts of the brain and functionality (love, or whatever thought process you want to use) goes away, like memory or interpretation of emotion, even changing someones "personality".
"Love" I would call a more generalized term for an encompassing group of strong affection for a target person, place or object and actions demonstrating empathy and care for the target. These actions, at least, are observable and could be argued as evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
I think we're getting off topic. You demanded an earlier poster prove that God exists or else you won't believe. I'm simply pointing out there are many things you already believe in that cannot be proven.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I made no such demand.
All I said was present evidence of God. That's it.
After reading the Bible, there is no way I'd worship God. Accord to the "good book", he treats this world no different than a brat kid does an ant farm an us no different than ants.
"Worship me or I'll torture you for eternity." That's not a "loving god". That's an abusive spouse. Torture for eternity is not a punishment. Punishment implies a chance to apply what you've learned. Eternity just makes him a sadist.
No thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: All I said was present evidence of God.
Exactly. And all I asked was for you to present evidence likewise that love exists. 
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: No thanks.
I agree. If god were the way you have interpreted, I'd have a problem with him too.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Exactly. And all I asked was for you to present evidence likewise that love exists.
Best I could do on such short notice.
RyanDev wrote: I agree. If god were the way you have interpreted, I'd have a problem with him too.
All I did was read the Bible. I really wouldn't call a genocidal mass murderer worthy of worship. If you want to, that's fine with me.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: All I did was read the Bible.
And misunderstand it. Just saying. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: And misunderstand it.
As do you and not by my opinion. It's the opinion of every other denomination of Christianity. That's why there are denominations. Want to know what's wrong with the First Baptist Church of anytown? Ask the Second Baptist Church. What's wrong with the Pentecosts? Ask the Baptists. Now THERE'S an argument that will never end.
Everyone thinks they are following the one true church. It seems God can't figure out how to communicate with any of them and unite them all.
And you say I misunderstand the Bible. The only difference between you and I is that I read it and interpreted it for myself. You have the person in the pulpit read it, interpret it and explain it to you. You stand for someone else's interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
