Originally posted by ETeachAnyone? Man has a inborn sense of right and wrong. The power to reason, question, and come to conclusions. Seperates us from the animals. Even all of that can't "prove", hence faith. But NO ONE has ever answered the question of Frankenstien, create life from nothing.
Of all of the wonderful, ( and terrible) things man can do, he cannot create life from inanimate objects. A rock will be inanimate forever. Nothing will breathe life into it.
case closed
From Job Chap. 42 " You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?" "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand. Things to wonderful for me, which I did not know."
In other words......Were were you when I made the world?
My favorite movie quote from Men in Black... "1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."
Originally posted by ETeachMan has as much "inborn sense of right and wrong" as a turd.
Anyone? Man has a inborn sense of right and wrong. The power to reason, question, and come to conclusions. Seperates us from the animals. Even all of that can't "prove", hence faith. But NO ONE has ever answered the question of Frankenstien, create life from nothing.
From Job Chap. 42 " You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?" "There ...[text shortened]... that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."
If you think I can't make life from nothing, you've never seen my refrigerator.
We didn't get to know as much as we know now by following a poor translation of the mythology of an ancient tribe of goat shaggers, and listening to even poorer interpretations of it spouted by inbred TV preachers.
Now, get thee off to the spirituality forum with the other frothing lunatics. They've got a soap box and straight jacket reserved just for you.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowI like this. Ascerbic to the utmost.
Man has as much "inborn sense of right and wrong" as a turd.
If you think I can't make life from nothing, you've never seen my refrigerator.
We didn't get to know as much as we know now by following a poor translation of the mythology of an ancient tribe of goat shaggers, and listening to even poorer interpretations of it spouted by inbred TV prea ...[text shortened]... other frothing lunatics. They've got a soap box and straight jacket reserved just for you.
Originally posted by jarrydWow jarryd! I rarely see you so animated, but beware. A guy I know slagged off the One GOD once and the next day, he found a snail in his salad!
i reckon simple explanations and laws of probability are worth paying attention to. i therefore reckon jesus was a political agitator within the roman empire, so they crucified him. a normal man, not the son of god, who died because he opposed rome. this probably made him a martyr amongst his co-agitators.
the bible was written by men, not god.
if there is ...[text shortened]... bdicating responsibility however is an easy way out so you don't have to think for yourself.
I warned you dude!
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveNobody needs to prove there isn't a god. It is incumbent on the person claiming there is a god to prove it. If he still cannot do so after 2,000 years then his god will be assumed to be false.
I have respect for people who have the strength of character to speak out for what they believe in without slagging the opposing viewpoint.
No one can PROVE there is a god and no one can PROVE there isn't.
Atheism should be the default starting position for everyone. Then if any good evidence came to light for the claim that god exists, then maybe the idea could be given some consideration. But given the complete and persistent lack of evidence to support the claim, it must be doubted.
Faith is nothing but wishful thinking.
Originally posted by rwingettYou could say exactly the same about extraterrestrial life.
Nobody needs to prove there isn't a god. It is incumbent on the person claiming there is a god to prove it. If he still cannot do so after 2,000 years then his god will be assumed to be false.
I personally keep an open mind to both "claims" and wait for proof rather than ridiculing the ideas.
yours sincerely,
an agnostic.
Originally posted by rwingettI would normally not repeat myself, but you have shown there is no shame in doing so.
Nobody needs to prove there isn't a god. It is incumbent on the person claiming there is a god to prove it.
No one needs to do anything if they don't give a rats. I agree, if one claims there is a God, for the sake of their credibility with "non-faithists", they must prove that contention. But this also applies to one who claims the opposing view (simply by symmetry). Thus, if one explicity claims "There is no God", the onus is on them to prove that contention.
I don't care if you call yourself an atheist, or a theist or Phil Magina - if you purport a hypothesis, the onus of proof is on you, no one else.
I'm picking you will reply with something like "I agree, you idiot". If you do, you have no hard stance on the existence of a "God" (which is my stance, incidently).
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveI do keep an open mind. If anybody shows me any good evidence for their claim, then I'm willing to accept it. No evidence equal no support.
You could say exactly the same about extraterrestrial life.
I personally keep an open mind to both "claims" and wait for proof rather than ridiculing the ideas.
yours sincerely,
an agnostic.
The claim for extraterrestrial life is very different. We know that life exists in the universe. It is reasonable, therefore, to entertain the possibility of life on a planet by one of the billions of stars in the universe. But I will only say that it is a possibility. I do not "believe" it. But as there is not one shred of good evidence for any gods, the claim must be doubted. You will note that I also accept the possibility that god may exist. But until some evidence comes to light, the claim must be doubted.
I don't ridicule people who claim that god might exist. I only ridicule people who claim to "know" that god exists.
Originally posted by KalsenI agree, you idiot.
I would normally not repeat myself, but you have shown there is no shame in doing so.
No one needs to do anything if they don't give a rats. I agree, if one claims there is a God, for the sake of their credibility with "non-faithists", they must prove that contention. But this also applies to one who claims the opposing view (simply by symmetry). Thus, if ...[text shortened]... you have no hard stance on the existence of a "God" (which is my stance, incidently).
I do not make the claim that "there is no god." I have never done so. All I am doing is asking the theist to demonstrate the validity of his claim. If he cannot do so, then his claim must be assumed to be false. This does not prove it to be false, but there is absolutely no reason to assume it's true either.
Originally posted by rwingettSome say you are guilty until proven innocent. Others say you are innocent until proven guilty. To the close minded there is no guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. To the close minded there is no proof based on the preponderance of the evidence. There is just belief or lack of belief. The proof may not be in this life but in that of death. You have heard it said that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, there is no sound. If I claimed the sound was there but not the reception and it is not sound that doesn't exist but instead reception. That does not necessarily prove anything. But common sense tells you if there was reception there would be sound. That is why theology is theory and anti-theology is also theory. Because there is no proof or disproof to the closed minded.
Nobody needs to prove there isn't a god. It is incumbent on the person claiming there is a god to prove it. If he still cannot do so after 2,000 years then his god will be assumed to be false.
Atheism should be the default starting position for everyone. Then if any good evidence came to light for the claim that god exists, then maybe the idea could be ...[text shortened]... f evidence to support the claim, it must be doubted.
Faith is nothing but wishful thinking.
Originally posted by cashthetrashI am not espousing anti-theology. I am not claiming anything. It is you who is claiming that there is a god. In order for me to believe your claim, you must provide me with some good evidence. If you cannot do so, then I must doubt it.
Some say you are guilty until proven innocent. Others say you are innocent until proven guilty. To the close minded there is no guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. To the close minded there is no proof based on the preponderance of the evidence. There is just belief or lack of belief. The proof may not be in this life but in that of death. You ...[text shortened]... y and anti-theology is also theory. Because there is no proof or disproof to the closed minded.
My mind is perfectly open. If you can give me some good evidence for the existence of god, then I'll believe it. If you can't, then I'll continue to assume your claim is false.