dear newbies,

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All we ask is that you substantiate your beliefs. For myself, in the nearly 4 years I've been here I've never seen a theist even come close without resorting to circular logic.

If a person born blind asks you to substantiate your belief in colors, what can you say?

A Christian is a person who "once was blind but now I see"

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It would help, perhaps, if you could even spell the word.....

And, by the way, I do not worship myself, but neither do I worship your bronze age mythology.

Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a God!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It would help, perhaps, if you could even spell the word.....

And, by the way, I do not worship myself, but neither do I worship your bronze age mythology.

No, you worship science! 😀

Originally posted by Van Hanegem
If a person born blind asks you to substantiate your belief in colors, what can you say?

A Christian is a person who "once was blind but now I see"

That is a popular but false claim. I can most definitely substantiate my belief in colours to a blind person. What is more a clever blind person could identify whether my belief was consistent.

Originally posted by Van Hanegem
If a person born blind asks you to substantiate your belief in colors, what can you say?

I would substantiate my belief in colors pretty much the same way I would substantiate my believe in x-rays, to which everyone is blind.

Originally posted by josephw
No, you worship science! 😀

Science is a method. I don't worship a method.

Originally posted by Van Hanegem
If a person born blind asks you to substantiate your belief in colors, what can you say?

A Christian is a person who "once was blind but now I see"

Lots of things. This is a completely false argument.

I cannot show you an individual atom, nor a quark, yet I'm sure you don't doubt that they exist. I cannot show you yesterday, yet you do not doubt it existed.

Think of it more this way, if a doctor told you to drink a suspicious, foaming blue liquid which he claimed would give you immortality, yet he had no proof of his claim, would you drink it??

You wouldn't trust a pharmaceutical which hadn't been tested, why do you not apply the same standard to your religion??

Originally posted by josephw
Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a God!

Non sequiter. Lets play a game, shall we??

Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a God!

Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is an Aboriginal sky snake!

Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a celestial teapot!

Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a God, called Henry, who lives at 23 Acacia road, Swansea, SW12 6PQ!

Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a big monster who eats people and deficates universes!

Can't you see it yet??? Your claim doesn't logically follow from the evidence. This is a non sequiter. You are ASSUMING god exists, not proving he exists.

I can't speak for others but the fact that I believe in God does not fill me with any need to "prove" His existence. In fact, I don't feel the need to prove anything, and the first item in this thread didn't say a thing about "God-proving."

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I can't speak for others but the fact that I believe in God does not fill me with any need to "prove" His existence.

Then the church should relinquish any influence it has over politics, etc. If you cannot prove your God exists,if you have no evidence whatsoever, then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Then the church should relinquish any influence it has over politics, etc. If you cannot prove your God exists,if you have no evidence whatsoever, then there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

🙄 That strikes me as amusing. "My" religious beliefs have zero political power. I'm not a member of the "Moral Majority", "Focus on the Family", Operation: Rescue" or any other of those quasi-religio-political groups. As for anyone taking me seriously, again--I haven't asked anyone to do so. There just happen to be a number of people who DO take it seriously, through no action of mine.....about 2 billion of 'em. 🙂

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Non sequiter. Lets play a game, shall we??

[b]Then you haven't been paying attention. You deny the existence of God because you "see" no empirical evidence. The very thing you use as empirical evidence, (creation) for your own cleverly designed theories, is all the evidence one needs to know there is a God!

Then you haven't been paying attent ...[text shortened]... This is a non sequiter. You are ASSUMING god exists, not proving he exists.[/b]

😴 Can't YOU see??? The evidence, that is, all that exists, that you use to support the theory of evolution, is, in reality, the evidence for the existence of a creator!

All that education you have is good, but you need to think outside the box. You simply don't know enough to know there is no God.

Evolution suggests that those who believe in God, today, do so because the belief in God is a carry over from a more primitive era when man didn't have the knowledge to explain his environment. So man invented God.

In reality, the idea that man invented God is the invention of man.

Originally posted by josephw
😴 Can't YOU see??? The evidence, that is, all that exists, that you use to support the theory of evolution, is, in reality, the evidence for the existence of a creator!

All that education you have is good, but you need to think outside the box. You simply don't know enough to know there is no God.

Evolution suggests that those who believe in God, to So man invented God.

In reality, the idea that man invented God is the invention of man.

Nope. None of the evidence suggests a god. That is an assumption forced upon the data by religious people.

If it IS evidence of a creator, then that creator is either retarded, incompetent, or negligent.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nope. None of the evidence suggests a god. That is an assumption forced upon the data by religious people.

If it IS evidence of a creator, then that creator is either retarded, incompetent, or negligent.

That is interesting, I've been thinking lately that the people who argue the strongest AGAINST intellegent design are probably deep down NOT atheists.

They protest too much.

Originally posted by jaywill
That is interesting, I've been thinking lately that the people who argue the strongest AGAINST intellegent design are probably deep down NOT atheists.

They protest too much.

Many of the people who argue the strongest against intelligent design - some of which testified at the Dover trial for example, are openly theists AND they recognize the fact that intelligent design isn't science.

You can be a theist and a scientist - as most scientists in the US are.

Most scientists in the US are theists AND accept evolution. Evolution isn't equivalent to atheism. You don't need to be an atheist to accept evolution.