1. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    07 May '09 14:18
    Originally posted by 667joe
    So you are admitting that you have no direct proof of god and furthermore that you don't care.
    It seems to me they say that they do have direct proof of "god" and furthermore that they don't care whether you believe them or not😵
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 May '09 14:52
    Originally posted by black beetle
    It seems to me they say that they do have direct proof of "god" and furthermore that they don't care whether you believe them or not😵
    skoooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my trusty fear, too much amber nectar and golden skoooooooooooooossh, now there is an onomatopoeic word if ever i heard it😵
  3. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    07 May '09 15:47
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    skoooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my trusty fear, too much amber nectar and golden skoooooooooooooossh, now there is an onomatopoeic word if ever i heard it😵
    Direct Contact, Semi Contact, Full Contact with "god" oh the horror😵
  4. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    156313
    07 May '09 15:52
    A proof means reproducible evidence attainable by any investigator that is available to everyone.
  5. Standard memberScriabin
    Done Asking
    Washington, D.C.
    Joined
    11 Oct '06
    Moves
    3464
    07 May '09 20:00
    In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district December 20, 2005, from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

    U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

    The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

    Jones decried the “breathtaking inanity” of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

    A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench in 2002.

    During the trial, the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection.

    The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution. The statement said Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It referred students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People.”

    But the judge said: “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.”

    The disclaimer, he said, "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

    In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

    In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments “may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science.” Among other things, he said intelligent design “violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation”; it relies on “flawed and illogical” arguments; and its attacks on evolution “have been refuted by the scientific community.”

    “The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources,” he wrote.

    Jones wrote that he wasn’t saying the intelligent design concept shouldn’t be studied and discussed, saying its advocates “have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.”

    But, he wrote, “our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”

    The judge also said: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    08 May '09 00:012 edits
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district December 20, 2005, from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

    U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Do time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
    M.J. Behe lives! peace be upon him! those secularists! i mean it Scriabin my friend, the evolutionary hypothesis has gone too far, its taught in principle or in part in everything from economics to law and criminality, as i am sure you are aware.
  7. Standard memberScriabin
    Done Asking
    Washington, D.C.
    Joined
    11 Oct '06
    Moves
    3464
    08 May '09 01:24
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    M.J. Behe lives! peace be upon him! those secularists! i mean it Scriabin my friend, the evolutionary hypothesis has gone too far, its taught in principle or in part in everything from economics to law and criminality, as i am sure you are aware.
    there is no evolutionary principle in the sense you mean. Evolution is a theory which applies to the biological sciences.

    it is used often as a metaphor, but it is not a "principle" of these other disciplines.

    you once more are trapped by your rather limited ability to use the one language that divides us, Robbie, old man.

    If you were better at English, you'd have a lot less trouble with these ideas.
  8. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    08 May '09 05:25
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district December 20, 2005, from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

    U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Do ...[text shortened]... time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
    That was beautiful. A tear is streaming down my face as I type this.
  9. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    08 May '09 05:44
    Originally posted by 667joe
    A proof means reproducible evidence attainable by any investigator that is available to everyone.
    Two billion Christians appear to believe amongst else that their "god" exists because they "feel" this supernatural existence within them. Now, when you go to the doc and you claim that you "feel" pain here or there but after the med examinations there is not any indication about the cause of your pain and also no indication of a deceived organ or of an entire mechanism of your body that does not work propely, should we assume that you do not "feel" pain?
    And when somebody you love dies and everything you experience is transformed into a vast emptiness at least for a prolongued period of your life, should we assume that you do not "feel" pain?

    If I "feel" pain then I "feel" pain and if "I 'm in love" then "I am in love" strictly according to my personal standards. How can you discard Rabbie's "feeling" of "pain" or refuse that he "felt in love" but at the same time you discard not my "feeling" about "no pain" or refuse that "I 'm not in love"?
    😵
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 May '09 08:29
    Originally posted by black beetle
    If I "feel" pain then I "feel" pain and if "I 'm in love" then "I am in love" strictly according to my personal standards. How can you discard Rabbie's "feeling" of "pain" or refuse that he "felt in love" but at the same time you discard not my "feeling" about "no pain" or refuse that "I 'm not in love"?
    😵
    We would find it hard to say that we have proof that you feel pain without first defining some characteristics of pain and investigating scientifically whether those characteristics match the symptoms.
    It is true that when you "feel" pain then you feel pain, but it is not necessarily true that when you say you feel pain that you do in fact feel pain. But this is totally separate from the question of whether when you 'feel' invisible pink unicorns poking you it means that invisible pink unicorns exist.

    The feeling of pain and the 'feeling' of Gods presence can both be scientifically studied and their causes and characteristics investigated. However I am not aware of any such study finding that the existence of God is the most scientifically plausible explanation, and it is certainly is not the only possible explanation.
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 May '09 08:511 edit
    Is it enough to feel to make this as a proof that the feeling is correct?

    If I feel that there is no god, then this is a proof that god does not exist?
    If I feel that the old Viking gods really exist, then they really exist?
    If I feel that there really is a Santa, then I will be expecting him at next xmas, and be sure about it? If I've really been a god boy, that is?
    If I feel that I will go to heaven when I die, then I will really find myself there after my last breath?

    In any case above, I would say no. To convince me I need a little bit more...
  12. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    08 May '09 10:50
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    We would find it hard to say that we have proof that you feel pain without first defining some characteristics of pain and investigating scientifically whether those characteristics match the symptoms.
    It is true that when you "feel" pain then you feel pain, but it is not necessarily true that when you say you feel pain that you do in fact feel pain. But ...[text shortened]... tifically plausible explanation, and it is certainly is not the only possible explanation.
    Cute!

    My knowledge comes from my 6 senses and it reveals not the external itself but my sensory adaptation, thus this process is a transformation of the "reality" as I perceive it into the "reality" as I understand and decode it. This means to me that there is no way to know by sense the "real"; I tend to think that I just create a web of pieces of information in my N=3 and T=1 environment as I perceive it. Furthermore, I evaluate everything according to a "perfect" reality whose existence I can surmise, however I cannot describe its character objectively; I understand the way I "understand" solely when I am mingled with the thing perceived.
    Therefore, when I state that I "feel" pain and I mean it, I know that I "feel" pain no matter of the current inability to have this feeling monitored and measured by means different than my personal World 2. And I am sure that our theist friends can believe that their "god" exists as much as they exist, due to the fact that they "see" the footprints of this so called supernatural existence everywhere in their personal World 2. For the time being they cannot prove that their "god" exists" and the atheists we cannot prove that their "god" cannot exist.

    On the other hand, I don't claim that the products of my personal World 2 have a physical existence in the World 1; I simply said that, once they exist in my World 2, then they are real to me -the analogy "pink unicorns" is poor because we both are aware of the fact that the pink unicorns do not exist, but I cannot prove that "god" does not exist. Of course, in case you think that you can prove based on scientific finds and evidence that "god" does not exist, please do comment😵
  13. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    08 May '09 10:53
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Is it enough to feel to make this as a proof that the feeling is correct?

    If I feel that there is no god, then this is a proof that god does not exist?
    If I feel that the old Viking gods really exist, then they really exist?
    If I feel that there really is a Santa, then I will be expecting him at next xmas, and be sure about it? If I've really been a ...[text shortened]... y last breath?

    In any case above, I would say no. To convince me I need a little bit more...
    But I do not want to convince you! I do believe that "god" is just a human invention, however I cannot prove using scientific finds and evidence that s/he it exists not😵
  14. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    08 May '09 11:48
    Originally posted by black beetle
    But I do not want to convince you! I do believe that "god" is just a human invention, however I cannot prove using scientific finds and evidence that s/he it exists not😵
    I know you don't want to convince me.
    But there are som many out there whou wants to. Because they have a feeling that they are right and according to that want to save me from the hell. They are even willing to kill for that purpose.
  15. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    08 May '09 12:08
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I know you don't want to convince me.
    But there are som many out there whou wants to. Because they have a feeling that they are right and according to that want to save me from the hell. They are even willing to kill for that purpose.
    Oh we agree🙂

    Paradise and hell are places located to one's mind; how can somebody save you if you ignore yourself?
    😵
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree