i am now a believer.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if there was overwhelming evidence, it would be fact, not theory. look, there is proof of natural selection and micro evolution, but there is no proof of macro evolution. you gotta love how the atheists in this forum come in here w/ their cocky attitudes like they are better than the theists when in the real world, theists outnumber atheists greatly. i would like to debate w/ somebody who did not think he/she was better than me.

Nope. You need to look up the definition of "theory".


A scientific theory is an explanation of a large body of facts. It is comprehensive, normally relatively complete, and despite a huge amount of testing, has never been shown to be substantively wrong.

Theories are bigger, more important, and probably truer than facts. Look down on facts, not theories.

You are using the common usage of the word theory (i.e. idea) and trying to equate the two. This is akin to calling someone who flies model planes a pilot, then comparing him with a 747 pilot, or an F16 pilot.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if there was overwhelming evidence, it would be fact, not theory. look, there is proof of natural selection and micro evolution, but there is no proof of macro evolution. you gotta love how the atheists in this forum come in here w/ their cocky attitudes like they are better than the theists when in the real world, theists outnumber atheists greatly. i would like to debate w/ somebody who did not think he/she was better than me.

Even RBHill probably thinks he's better than you are.

Originally posted by rwingett
Even RBHill probably thinks he's better than you are.

do you feel safe when you make remarks like that from hundreds to thousands of miles away behind your computer?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
do you feel safe when you make remarks like that from hundreds to thousands of miles away behind your computer?

I bet RWillis could kick your ass.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if there was overwhelming evidence, it would be fact, not theory. look, there is proof of natural selection and micro evolution, but there is no proof of macro evolution. you gotta love how the atheists in this forum come in here w/ their cocky attitudes like they are better than the theists when in the real world, theists outnumber atheists greatly. i would like to debate w/ somebody who did not think he/she was better than me.

What would you like to debate?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I bet RWillis could kick your ass.

Are we placing bets? What odds do you give me? I wonder if EcstremeVenom would just turn the other cheek?

Originally posted by kirksey957
What would you like to debate?

well i have discovered that debating the EXISTENCE of god only gets me going in circles. if there was a way to disprove god, then there wouldnt be believers today. also, it is very hard to win a debate of god's existence because for an atheist to win, he only has to fight for a draw. he can simply say "prove it"; it is much like a country invading another country in war and the defending country fights to a draw and wins. when a problem comes to mind i will post another thread.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
do you feel safe when you make remarks like that from hundreds to thousands of miles away behind your computer?

I'll give you a piece of advice: If you go around arguing against evolution, people are just going to treat you like an idiot. If you don't want to be treated like an idiot, then don't act like one.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
if there was a way to disprove god, then there wouldnt be believers today.

Don't count on it! There is plenty of evidence against the existence of God and, in my "who's game?" thread, I'm trying to work out what kind of evidences would be required to convince a theist that God does not, in fact, exist.

The overwhelming answer seems to be that God existence is assumed, and no amount of evidence will change that fact.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
also, it is very hard to win a debate of god's existence because for an atheist to win, he only has to fight for a draw.

I see lots of move repetitions in the Spirituality forum, but people usually still seem to play for the win. Maybe we should offer or claim draws more often.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
well i have discovered that debating the EXISTENCE of god only gets me going in circles. if there was a way to disprove god, then there wouldnt be believers today. also, it is very hard to win a debate of god's existence because for an atheist to win, he only has to fight for a draw. he can simply say "prove it"; it is much like a country invading anot ...[text shortened]... g country fights to a draw and wins. when a problem comes to mind i will post another thread.

How about something more interesting like who is a bigger idiot, Paris Hilton or Britney Spears?

Originally posted by kirksey957
How about something more interesting like who is a bigger idiot, Paris Hilton or Britney Spears?

i dont keep up w/ that stuff but im pretty sure brittany is in the process of or has already lost her kids.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What science? The original poster wasn't talking about science, he was talking about God, and some mumbo jumbo he had conjured up to make himself feel better about deluding himself.

yes, but people have brought science (at least in name) into the debate since then. try to keep up😛

Originally posted by Nordlys
I see lots of move repetitions in the Spirituality forum, but people usually still seem to play for the win. Maybe we should offer or claim draws more often.

i think a draw on the grounds of insufficient force would be a just outcome in most of these 'debates'

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
now i am stuck in a position where i believe in god(s) but idk who he/she/them/it is.

Pascal said there are only three kinds of people in the world: those who have sought God and found him, those who are seeking Him and have not found Him, and those who neither seek Him nor find Him. Pascal called the first class "reasonable (wise) and happy" -- reasonable because they seek and happy because they find. He calls the second class "reasonable and unhappy" -- reasonable because they seek and unhappy because they have not yet found. He called the third class "unreasonable and unhappy" -- unreasonable because they do not seek and unhappy because they do not find.