Lioness in zoo kills man who invoked God

[red team]

"The man shouted 'God will save me, if he exists'"

Well, at least he was able to show that God doesn't exist.

Lioness in zoo kills man (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-06-05T123124Z_01_L05642927_RTRUKOC_0_US-UKRAINE-LION.xml)

[Comrade J]

All the Christians will only say you shouldn't test God, and refer to the bit in the Bible where the Devil tried to tempt the Big JC himself.
And that's basically proof that God doesn't exist, if we can't 'test' him, then how the hell does he expect rational people to believe in him?! It's like diving into a river from a cliff, just 'assuming' it is deep without testing it... a blind (literal) leap of faith.

To be honest, I find the whole lion thing rather amusing, it's the idiot's fault for thinking an invisible man in the sky would save him from a hungry wild animal. Oh when will they learn?

[MrDoom]

What a dumbass.

[pyro1313]

Shit.....That dude had to do some work to die!

"Lions and tigers are kept in an "animal island" protected by thick concrete blocks."

I woulda quit after the first block...
Fuck this, I'll just jump off a bridge!

Maybe God can fly, like superman! :lol:

[Janus]

Rather than waste time praying, he should've tried to escape. He must be stupid if he really thought that someone would come down and shut the mouths of the lions for him. :lol:

[FriedFrog]

Never test God! One of the golden rules, that is. An opportunity for him to prove himself is too darn easy.

[pyro1313]

Rather than waste time praying, he should've tried to escape

Did you read the story?

He put himself in there!!

He wanted to be with the lions.....that's why he shoulda done something easier, to kill himself

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:46 PM
that's why he shoulda done something easier, to kill himself
Oh come on. Everybody can kill themselves, but it takes someone special to climb into a lion's den.

Besides, he probably figured the coverage would be better.

[fitzcarraldo]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.

[fitzcarraldo]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.

[fitzcarraldo]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.

[Martin Blank]

Tot Christiani, pauculi leones.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Tot Christiani, pauculi leones.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Tot Christiani, pauculi leones.

Miles

[Herman]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.

But doesn't God love us all? :o Why did he let him die?

[Herman]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.

But doesn't God love us all? :o Why did he let him die?

[Herman]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.

But doesn't God love us all? :o Why did he let him die?

[fitzcarraldo]

Tot Christiani, pauculi leones.

Miles


Tot Christiani, pauculi leones? :o Nonne paucila leonum? Te bastardam est. Te stultissimus hominuum malum in munde est. Ego nacabo si te revenias. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[fitzcarraldo]

Tot Christiani, pauculi leones.

Miles


Tot Christiani, pauculi leones? :o Nonne paucila leonum? Te bastardam est. Te stultissimus hominuum malum in munde est. Ego nacabo si te revenias. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[fitzcarraldo]

Tot Christiani, pauculi leones.

Miles


Tot Christiani, pauculi leones? :o Nonne paucila leonum? Te bastardam est. Te stultissimus hominuum malum in munde est. Ego nacabo si te revenias. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:28 AM
Tot Christiani, pauculi leones? :o Nonne paucila leonum? Te bastardam est. Te stultissimus hominuum malum in munde est. Ego nacabo si te revenias. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Basiatisne vostra mater cum illic os? :o

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:28 AM
Tot Christiani, pauculi leones? :o Nonne paucila leonum? Te bastardam est. Te stultissimus hominuum malum in munde est. Ego nacabo si te revenias. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Basiatisne vostra mater cum illic os? :o

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:28 AM
Tot Christiani, pauculi leones? :o Nonne paucila leonum? Te bastardam est. Te stultissimus hominuum malum in munde est. Ego nacabo si te revenias. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Basiatisne vostra mater cum illic os? :o

Miles

[fitzcarraldo]

Basiatisne vostra mater cum illic os?


quid!!? Ego Basiatio meam matram in ose? Nunc te dabo! Te sclerimus homunum omnibum est in mundus totalus. Et avatrum mevm est melior quam tibi quoque. HAH! Nunc venerate mevm devm quam deus tuus. Gracia.

[fitzcarraldo]

Basiatisne vostra mater cum illic os?


quid!!? Ego Basiatio meam matram in ose? Nunc te dabo! Te sclerimus homunum omnibum est in mundus totalus. Et avatrum mevm est melior quam tibi quoque. HAH! Nunc venerate mevm devm quam deus tuus. Gracia.

[fitzcarraldo]

Basiatisne vostra mater cum illic os?


quid!!? Ego Basiatio meam matram in ose? Nunc te dabo! Te sclerimus homunum omnibum est in mundus totalus. Et avatrum mevm est melior quam tibi quoque. HAH! Nunc venerate mevm devm quam deus tuus. Gracia.

[Si Pinto]

'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:

[Si Pinto]

'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:

[Si Pinto]

'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:

[RaiseYourVoice]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.
good thing he decides over his believers only :P

This story is funny i can see the picture in front of me, some mentaly insane christian in a lion cage and the lion just thinking "dinners too early", great. :lol:

[RaiseYourVoice]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.
good thing he decides over his believers only :P

This story is funny i can see the picture in front of me, some mentaly insane christian in a lion cage and the lion just thinking "dinners too early", great. :lol:

[RaiseYourVoice]

I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.
good thing he decides over his believers only :P

This story is funny i can see the picture in front of me, some mentaly insane christian in a lion cage and the lion just thinking "dinners too early", great. :lol:

[fitzcarraldo]

This story is funny i can see the picture in front of me, some mentaly insane christian in a lion cage and the lion just thinking "dinners too early", great.
Are there more Religious or Irreligious people in the world? Is'nt insanity what is not normal? Isn't religion normal? Who are the real insane ones?

[fitzcarraldo]

This story is funny i can see the picture in front of me, some mentaly insane christian in a lion cage and the lion just thinking "dinners too early", great.
Are there more Religious or Irreligious people in the world? Is'nt insanity what is not normal? Isn't religion normal? Who are the real insane ones?

[fitzcarraldo]

This story is funny i can see the picture in front of me, some mentaly insane christian in a lion cage and the lion just thinking "dinners too early", great.
Are there more Religious or Irreligious people in the world? Is'nt insanity what is not normal? Isn't religion normal? Who are the real insane ones?

[RaiseYourVoice]

i dont know about insanity, but you seem not to read my post. i said insane christian, there are also sane christians, and insane atheist. i never said christianity is linked to insanity sorry.

btw

World Religion (http://commhum.mccneb.edu/dweber/220-Religion/Handounts/Religion%20Statistics_files/image002.gif)

even if i had said that, your argument wasnt correct, 33% of the world population were christians in 2002 so if that didnt change, christians are not the majority.

[RaiseYourVoice]

i dont know about insanity, but you seem not to read my post. i said insane christian, there are also sane christians, and insane atheist. i never said christianity is linked to insanity sorry.

btw

World Religion (http://commhum.mccneb.edu/dweber/220-Religion/Handounts/Religion%20Statistics_files/image002.gif)

even if i had said that, your argument wasnt correct, 33% of the world population were christians in 2002 so if that didnt change, christians are not the majority.

[RaiseYourVoice]

i dont know about insanity, but you seem not to read my post. i said insane christian, there are also sane christians, and insane atheist. i never said christianity is linked to insanity sorry.

btw

World Religion (http://commhum.mccneb.edu/dweber/220-Religion/Handounts/Religion%20Statistics_files/image002.gif)

even if i had said that, your argument wasnt correct, 33% of the world population were christians in 2002 so if that didnt change, christians are not the majority.

[fitzcarraldo]

i dont know about insanity, but you seem not to read my post. i said insane christian, there are also sane christians, and insane atheist. i never said christianity is linked to insanity sorry.


Sorry. Do you think I am sane or not?

[fitzcarraldo]

i dont know about insanity, but you seem not to read my post. i said insane christian, there are also sane christians, and insane atheist. i never said christianity is linked to insanity sorry.


Sorry. Do you think I am sane or not?

[fitzcarraldo]

i dont know about insanity, but you seem not to read my post. i said insane christian, there are also sane christians, and insane atheist. i never said christianity is linked to insanity sorry.


Sorry. Do you think I am sane or not?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Sorry i'm neither a psychologist nor do i know you enough to decide that.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Sorry i'm neither a psychologist nor do i know you enough to decide that.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Sorry i'm neither a psychologist nor do i know you enough to decide that.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 23 2006, 05:20 AM
'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:
That's...actually...in...The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :lol: :lol: Oh shit, that's priceless...

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 23 2006, 05:20 AM
'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:
That's...actually...in...The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :lol: :lol: Oh shit, that's priceless...

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 23 2006, 05:20 AM
'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:
That's...actually...in...The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :lol: :lol: Oh shit, that's priceless...

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 11:55 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 11:55 AM)
Si [email protected] 23 2006, 05:20 AM
'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:
That's...actually...in...The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :lol: :lol: Oh shit, that's priceless... [/b]
:lol: :lol:


Well, I was nearly right :D :P :D



That 'book' looked a damn better read than the bible anyway!!!

;)

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 11:55 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 11:55 AM)
Si [email protected] 23 2006, 05:20 AM
'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:
That's...actually...in...The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :lol: :lol: Oh shit, that's priceless... [/b]
:lol: :lol:


Well, I was nearly right :D :P :D



That 'book' looked a damn better read than the bible anyway!!!

;)

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+Jun 23 2006, 11:55 AM--> (MonicaTTmed @ Jun 23 2006, 11:55 AM)
Si [email protected] 23 2006, 05:20 AM
'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

I think it says that in the Bible somewhere (hell of a long time since I looked in there).

Sounds a bit like the politicians giving themselves 'immunity from prosecution', if you ask me. :rolleyes:
That's...actually...in...The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. :lol: :lol: Oh shit, that's priceless... [/b]
:lol: :lol:


Well, I was nearly right :D :P :D



That 'book' looked a damn better read than the bible anyway!!!

;)

[fitzcarraldo]

'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Sorry for asking, but what does that actually mean?

[fitzcarraldo]

'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Sorry for asking, but what does that actually mean?

[fitzcarraldo]

'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Sorry for asking, but what does that actually mean?

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:51 AM
I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.
Or, a force-field generated by 14 invisible Serbian fairies using the tail of a pink unicorn and the teeth of the Loch Ness Monster somehow prevented the amazing powers of God from saving the man, because they had a pact with the Lioness (which talks) that they would bring it a human to eat, in return for 5 Gold coins, which funnily enough, the lioness shits out on a regular basis... :huh:

It is about testing God. This man was testing God.
One can assume, that by climbing into the lioness cage, and thinking God would save him, the man was rather confident that God existed. The fact that he says "if God exists, he will save me" we can also assume he thought he knew God reasonably well. This is probably from reading the Bible, 'listening' to God and so on. However, he was wrong about God, so we can therefore say that God is not the Judeo-Christian God that many people believe in, or he does not exist, which is obviously the most logical solution.
An invisible man in the sky, who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent would save the man from the lioness, it is the logical conclusion to arrive at from this supposed 'fact.' However, he did not, and there is still no evidence for this mythical being in the sky.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:51 AM
I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.
Or, a force-field generated by 14 invisible Serbian fairies using the tail of a pink unicorn and the teeth of the Loch Ness Monster somehow prevented the amazing powers of God from saving the man, because they had a pact with the Lioness (which talks) that they would bring it a human to eat, in return for 5 Gold coins, which funnily enough, the lioness shits out on a regular basis... :huh:

It is about testing God. This man was testing God.
One can assume, that by climbing into the lioness cage, and thinking God would save him, the man was rather confident that God existed. The fact that he says "if God exists, he will save me" we can also assume he thought he knew God reasonably well. This is probably from reading the Bible, 'listening' to God and so on. However, he was wrong about God, so we can therefore say that God is not the Judeo-Christian God that many people believe in, or he does not exist, which is obviously the most logical solution.
An invisible man in the sky, who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent would save the man from the lioness, it is the logical conclusion to arrive at from this supposed 'fact.' However, he did not, and there is still no evidence for this mythical being in the sky.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:51 AM
I think its sad that God couldn't help him in his hour of need. I don't think its about 'testing' God or anything. I think, unfortunately, God decided his time had come.
Or, a force-field generated by 14 invisible Serbian fairies using the tail of a pink unicorn and the teeth of the Loch Ness Monster somehow prevented the amazing powers of God from saving the man, because they had a pact with the Lioness (which talks) that they would bring it a human to eat, in return for 5 Gold coins, which funnily enough, the lioness shits out on a regular basis... :huh:

It is about testing God. This man was testing God.
One can assume, that by climbing into the lioness cage, and thinking God would save him, the man was rather confident that God existed. The fact that he says "if God exists, he will save me" we can also assume he thought he knew God reasonably well. This is probably from reading the Bible, 'listening' to God and so on. However, he was wrong about God, so we can therefore say that God is not the Judeo-Christian God that many people believe in, or he does not exist, which is obviously the most logical solution.
An invisible man in the sky, who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent would save the man from the lioness, it is the logical conclusion to arrive at from this supposed 'fact.' However, he did not, and there is still no evidence for this mythical being in the sky.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:07 PM


'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Sorry for asking, but what does that actually mean?
Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.

I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:07 PM


'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Sorry for asking, but what does that actually mean?
Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.

I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:07 PM


'Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing'

Sorry for asking, but what does that actually mean?
Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.

I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.

[RevMARKSman]

Proof denies faith- right?
If the Tooth Fairy shows up, I no longer need to have faith in it because I have proof.

Without faith I am nothing- If no one believes in God (assuming he exists in the first place), then it's the same as if he didn't exist.

[RevMARKSman]

Proof denies faith- right?
If the Tooth Fairy shows up, I no longer need to have faith in it because I have proof.

Without faith I am nothing- If no one believes in God (assuming he exists in the first place), then it's the same as if he didn't exist.

[RevMARKSman]

Proof denies faith- right?
If the Tooth Fairy shows up, I no longer need to have faith in it because I have proof.

Without faith I am nothing- If no one believes in God (assuming he exists in the first place), then it's the same as if he didn't exist.

[fitzcarraldo]

Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.


Thanks Si Pinto and Monica. That's what I thought but for a moment I thought I detected a deeper meaning which contradicted that. Anyway, you've probably heard this sophism before: "I like cats. I like John. John is a cat." There is my answer. Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.



I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.
I remember it. I loved the soundtrack. Probably up on youtube. I hadn't seen the film but it's no doubt made by hollyweird so what does one expect?

[fitzcarraldo]

Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.


Thanks Si Pinto and Monica. That's what I thought but for a moment I thought I detected a deeper meaning which contradicted that. Anyway, you've probably heard this sophism before: "I like cats. I like John. John is a cat." There is my answer. Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.



I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.
I remember it. I loved the soundtrack. Probably up on youtube. I hadn't seen the film but it's no doubt made by hollyweird so what does one expect?

[fitzcarraldo]

Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.


Thanks Si Pinto and Monica. That's what I thought but for a moment I thought I detected a deeper meaning which contradicted that. Anyway, you've probably heard this sophism before: "I like cats. I like John. John is a cat." There is my answer. Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.



I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.
I remember it. I loved the soundtrack. Probably up on youtube. I hadn't seen the film but it's no doubt made by hollyweird so what does one expect?

[KC]

Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.

You're right. But the thing is, that since you are making the claim that god exists, the onus is on you to prove that it's true. I suggest checking out this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457) thread.

Claiming that god exists without evidence is just as believable as claiming that there's psionic spiders at the center of Mars controlling our minds. You believe in that as well?

[KC]

Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.

You're right. But the thing is, that since you are making the claim that god exists, the onus is on you to prove that it's true. I suggest checking out this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457) thread.

Claiming that god exists without evidence is just as believable as claiming that there's psionic spiders at the center of Mars controlling our minds. You believe in that as well?

[KC]

Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.

You're right. But the thing is, that since you are making the claim that god exists, the onus is on you to prove that it's true. I suggest checking out this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457) thread.

Claiming that god exists without evidence is just as believable as claiming that there's psionic spiders at the center of Mars controlling our minds. You believe in that as well?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:25 AM

Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.


Thanks Si Pinto and Monica. That's what I thought but for a moment I thought I detected a deeper meaning which contradicted that. Anyway, you've probably heard this sophism before: "I like cats. I like John. John is a cat." There is my answer. Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.



I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.
I remember it. I loved the soundtrack. Probably up on youtube. I hadn't seen the film but it's no doubt made by hollyweird so what does one expect?
You can disprove a negative--by providing solid evidence of the positive.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:25 AM

Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.


Thanks Si Pinto and Monica. That's what I thought but for a moment I thought I detected a deeper meaning which contradicted that. Anyway, you've probably heard this sophism before: "I like cats. I like John. John is a cat." There is my answer. Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.



I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.
I remember it. I loved the soundtrack. Probably up on youtube. I hadn't seen the film but it's no doubt made by hollyweird so what does one expect?
You can disprove a negative--by providing solid evidence of the positive.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:25 AM

Basically, it's saying that if you try to prove that God exists, then you can't have faith in God, and if you don't have faith in God, then he can't exist.


Thanks Si Pinto and Monica. That's what I thought but for a moment I thought I detected a deeper meaning which contradicted that. Anyway, you've probably heard this sophism before: "I like cats. I like John. John is a cat." There is my answer. Anyway, from your perspective, you can't disprove a negative.



I've just been watching Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy to try and find the bit were it says it.

Good series that, crap film, but a good series.
I remember it. I loved the soundtrack. Probably up on youtube. I hadn't seen the film but it's no doubt made by hollyweird so what does one expect?
You can disprove a negative--by providing solid evidence of the positive.

[fitzcarraldo]

You're right. But the thing is, that since you are making the claim that god exists, the onus is on you to prove that it's true. I suggest checking out this thread.

And yet, enlightenment atheism clearly states there is NO GOD and fails to back up its claims with evidence. Some 'enlightenment'. Where is the proof from the advocates of materialism? Are you are the people who require proof? I don't as I rely upon faith. Your faith is science, the religion which categorically fails to disprove that which its advocates claim does not exist.



Claiming that god exists without evidence is just as believable as claiming that there's psionic spiders at the center of Mars controlling our minds. You believe in that as well?
You have made an absurd statement. Of course it is not verifiable and relies upon faith. A question - how can you disprove the existence of these spiders. The answer - you cannot? Your religion is no less religious than mine.

[KC]

And yet, enlightenment atheism clearly states there is NO GOD and fails to back up its claims with evidence.

God is an introduced concept. Therefore since it is an introduced concept, the burden of proof is on those that support this concept, not those that are against it.


I don't as I rely upon faith.

How can you believe something that isn't true? How does that even make sense? Are you an idiot?


Your faith is science

Science isn't a faith. You see, the difference is the fact that you will continue to believe in god despite the logical conclusion that you are wrong. You don't understand common sense, and that is why you will "have faith" regardless of the facts. You are completely incapable of understanding the world around you to any significant extent, as logic is the only way for us to understand the world we live in.

Science is based on logic and therefore it is the best way to understand the world around us. You have also failed to prove that god exists after I informed you that the burden of proof is on you.



You have made an absurd statement. Of course it is not verifiable and relies upon faith. A question - how can you disprove the existence of these spiders. The answer - you cannot? Your religion is no less religious than mine.

That's the whole point. Now, you have to also believe in these psionic spiders because it is exactly the same situation as god. Or you could look at the cold hard facts and realize that you're just plain wrong! ;)

[fitzcarraldo]

God is an introduced concept. Therefore since it is an introduced concept, the burden of proof is on those that support this concept, not those that are against it.

And atheism is not an introduced concept? God is real. God is self evident. You reject God yet offer no alternative explanation for the functioning laws of the universe.


How can you believe something that isn't true? How does that even make sense? Are you an idiot?

Now there's a positive assertion. If you can't prove God isn't true you are beleiving in a potential falsehood. How interesting for someone that requires 'proof'.


Science isn't a faith. You see, the difference is the fact that you will continue to believe in god despite the logical conclusion that you are wrong.
How do you arrive at the logical conclusion that there is no God? I am interested to know.



You don't understand common sense, and that is why you will "have faith" regardless of the facts. You are completely incapable of understanding the world around you to any significant extent, as logic is the only way for us to understand the world we live in.
How do you know? You don't know me. You don't know what I know about the functioning of the universe?



Science is based on logic and therefore it is the best way to understand the world around us. You have also failed to prove that god exists after I informed you that the burden of proof is on you.

And you have failed to disprove him with your 'science'. So much for 'science' eh? So much for 'common sence'. Beleif without proof is a religion. Your scepticism has taken on a religious aspect unless you fail to provide evidence God categorically does not exist, which is what you state.

[fitzcarraldo]

That's the whole point. Now, you have to also believe in these psionic spiders because it is exactly the same situation as god. Or you could look at the cold hard facts and realize that you're just plain wrong!

I am wrong becuase you can't prove the existence of your spiders on Mars? How reassuring!

[KC]

And atheism is not an introduced concept?

Since you haven't posted in the Burden of Proof (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457) thread, I'll just take some excerpts from the links there.


Originally posted by Burden of proof (logical fallacy)
Reversing the burden of proof is a logical fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed.

For example, it may be asserted that carrying a rabbit's foot improves luck on the grounds that it cannot be proven that it does not.

This is fallacious for two reasons: first, it requires proof of a negative, and second, it places the burden of proof on the challenger, not the proposer of the idea. Formally, before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven.

In some cases a reversed burden of proof may be appropriate: for example, when an empirical relationship has been observed but the underlying mechanism is unknown, it may be reasonable to infer from the lack of conflicting evidence that the empirically observed relationship is most likely causal. However, according to the scientific method the relationship is not formally proven in this instance, and to assert that it is so until disproven is fallacious.


The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."

Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist.

So, as you can see, the burden of proof is obviously on you.


God is real.

Prove it.


You reject God yet offer no alternative explanation for the functioning laws of the universe.

How about everything science has explained?



Now there's a positive assertion. If you can't prove God isn't true you are beleiving in a potential falsehood. How interesting for someone that requires 'proof'.

I suggest that you check out the Burden of Proof thread, and respond accordingly, because you're simply wrong here, for the very same reasons I oulined above.



How do you arrive at the logical conclusion that there is no God?

How about the fact that in the thousands of years that we have been attempting to understand the universe, we haven't come across any proof of a god. In response to the development of science, religion had to "roll back" the influence of god. God no longer created us at the center of the universe; god no longer created the planet a few thousand years ago; god no longer is the explanation for everything. The fact that we have been able to explain so much scientifically that once was explained by god, and the fact that we haven't found a single shred of evidence supporting the idea of god helps us come to the logical conlusion that god doesn't exist. Why? Because there's no proof.


You don't know what I know about the functioning of the universe?

I don't have to to be correct. When you throw logic out the window, you are no longer explaining the universe we live in; you are explaining the universe you wish you lived in. Your "faith" is just your way of escaping this world because you are too weak to face it.



And you have failed to disprove him with your 'science'.

The burden of proof is on you. I proved this above and in the thread I have linked to.



I am wrong becuase you can't prove the existence of your spiders on Mars? How reassuring!

Do you now believe that these spiders exist?

So go for it. Prove god exists. I'm waiting to see this proof of yours.

[fitzcarraldo]

Since you haven't posted in the Burden of Proof thread, I'll just take some excerpts from the links there.

Burden Of Proof? You think burden of proof shouldn't be applied equally? You think there is some kind of natural etiquette inherent in the universe where one who makes a positive statement must prove it categorically or the opposite is automatically true? You are more religious than you think. Well where is your proof for the lack of existence of God? Or do you think absence of evidence is evidence of absence? :rolleyes:




You reject God yet offer no alternative explanation for the functioning laws of the universe.



How about everything science has explained?

Phsycists know of the existence of too few of natures' laws. They know nothing of WHY they opperate and continue to do so. Where is the explantion science has provided?


How about the fact that in the thousands of years that we have been attempting to understand the universe, we haven't come across any proof of a god. In response to the development of science, religion had to "roll back" the influence of god. God no longer created us at the center of the universe; god no longer created the planet a few thousand years ago; god no longer is the explanation for everything.The fact that we have been able to explain so much scientifically that once was explained by god,

God is still the 'explanation' for everything, unless you can tell me what is holding existence together. I am all ears. I would love to know. And we have observed a great deal, but explained very little.


and the fact that we haven't found a single shred of evidence supporting the idea of god helps us come to the logical conlusion that god doesn't exist. Why? Because there's no proof
What if God was the universe, or the entirity of existence? Then we'd be bumbing into him all the time huh? :D In fact, this is what both the Old Testament and Jesus state. God is everywhere. The Emerald Tablet deciphered by Isaac Newton informed him the word of God permeated the universe and contained seven voices. He considered the spectrum of light to be the word of God. Idealist philosophers state we live in the minds of spirits as they cannot "prove" the existence of matter without allowing for the fact that it could be an illusion. Can you?


I don't have to to be correct. When you throw logic out the window, you are no longer explaining the universe we live in; you are explaining the universe you wish you lived in. Your "faith" is just your way of escaping this world because you are too weak to face it.

Religion is the opiate of the masses?


The burden of proof is on you. I proved this above and in the thread I have linked to.
Thanks for showing me how useful science is. Can't even disprove something which should be easily refutable if its soooo ridiculous.


Do you now believe that these spiders exist?

So go for it. Prove god exists. I'm waiting to see this proof of yours.
I am agnostic about the spiders as I haven't been to Mars. HAVE YOU MR PROOF?

[Si Pinto]

This whole argument is going round and round in circles :wacko: .

But then it usely does.

So let's bring things back down to earth.

Fitzcaraldo - Let's say that your God does exist, and is 'in everything' and 'omniscient'.

What's so good about something that, allows disabled babies (and don't give me that crap about 'sins from a past life' as that makes God vindictive, i.e. God gives a second chance to people but still punishes them for their past actions).

Why believe in a God that allows famine, the slaughter of innocents, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair?

If you believe that your God has any tangible powers, then your God is a Sadist, as God allows the suffering of Mankind, and Animalkind and Plantkind as well.

If you believe that God is the unification of human spirit (I used to believe this), then a Revolution is a God, a well supported football team is a God, ... the Beach Boys fan club is a God.

That's why there are so many religions around the world, each one is a 'fan club' (and I don't mean that offensively) of their particular beliefs.

[RevMARKSman]

Or do you think absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

I'm trying to find water in a glass. I wipe a cloth around the whole thing and it ends up completely dry. I use a microscope to cover the entire glass, searching for water. I even look on the molecular level--and find NO WATER.

Is there water in the glass?
In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If you think that there is water in the glass, you've got to provide EVIDENCE.


You think there is some kind of natural etiquette inherent in the universe where one who makes a positive statement must prove it categorically or the opposite is automatically true?

No, we use common sense. Since there is no evidence for God, the tooth fairy, ghosts, goblins, monsters under the bed, and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South, we assume that they DO NOT EXIST. It's up to you to provide EVIDENCE. So you think that just because there is no evidence that these creatures do NOT exist, that they do exist? Nope. You've got to provide EVIDENCE. How many times must I stress this?


Can you?

I think, therefore I am.
Regarding the outside universe: If I am making this up--then why do I not know what is going to happen next? If I'm doing this, shouldn't I know what I'm making up?

Religion is the opiate of the masses?

Absolutely. It's irrational and teaches that we can trash the world because there's an afterlife that lasts forever.



Thanks for showing me how useful science is. Can't even disprove something which should be easily refutable if its soooo ridiculous.

I can't disprove it using evidence (negative evidence doesn't exist) but I can disprove it using
1. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
2. LOGIC:
(must I post these arguments on every single thread?)

THE PERFECTION-vs.-CREATION ARGUMENT
1.) If God exists, then he is perfect..
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4.) If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6.) Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). - Theodore M. Drange




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD'S JUSTICE AND MERCY
1.) If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.
2.) If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.
3.) An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
4.) An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
5.) It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
6.) Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).
7.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6). - A construct of one of Dan Barker's arguments. Rewritten by Theodore M. Drange.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1.) If God exists, then he is immutable.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4.) For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5.) Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERFECTION/CREATION INCOHERENCE ARGUMENT
1.) God, by definition, is a perfect being.
2.) God, by definition, deliberately created the universe.
3.) So, if God were to exist, then he would be a perfect being who deliberately created something.
4.) To be perfect, one cannot have any needs or wants.
5.) To deliberately create something, one must have at least one need or want.
6.) Thus, it is impossible for a perfect being to deliberately create anything.
7.) Therefore, God cannot exist. - Theodore M. Drange
(Comments: P4 could be denied, however once we look at what the definition of what perfection is the argument holds: Perfection: 'The quality or state of being perfect or complete, so that nothing requisite is wanting.. entire development, consummate culture, skill, or moral excellence...' - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
Comments: You see, this is the problem, God cannot be jealous. Be he is. Yahweh cannot possibly exist if he has both the attributes of love and jealousy.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God’s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Jesus, God's Flesh, died at the cross.
2.) Flesh & Blood cannot enter into Heaven per (1 Cor. 15:50-56)
3.) Jesus was Flesh.
4.) Jesus no longer exists. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem. However, if Jesus “is” God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead. - IG
And for those that don't believe Paul was talking about Flesh & Blood literally (Fallen Man) please refer to the Greek meaning of Flesh.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVIL IS GOOD?
1.) God is good all of the time.
2.) Everything that God creates is good. Amen?
3.) God created evil according to Isaiah 45:7. (look it up)
4.) Evil is good. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM THE SELF
1.) If God exists, he is omnipresent (occupying all space).
2.) Since God occupies all space, past, present, and future, there is nothing that is NOT God.
3.) God therefore, cannot have a sense of the independent self.
4.) Since God has no sense of the self or non-self, he cannot have a consciousness.
5.) In conclusion, God cannot have a mind and would resemble nothing more than the non-conscious Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: Of course P3 could be denied if one believes the human mind is somehow not part of Gods. This argument is more designed for those that believe that God is ALL things.(Which is the typical theist I encounter).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON GOD BEING ATEMPORAL
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (This is explained and discussed more HERE.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical. - Hank & Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing)
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

Comments: (If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANOTHER ATEMPORAL ARGUMENT
1.) God is an atemporal being.
2.) God is all aware.
3.) God then would be aware of the passage of time.
4.) The passage of anything is change from one instance to another.
5.) God is not an a temporal being. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ON MAN'S FREEWILL
1.) God has an unchangeable plan for everything past, present & future.
2.) Everything that occurs past, present and future will be part of God's unchanging plan.
3.) Thoughts and actions occur and are part of God's unchanging plan.
4.) Thoughts and actions cannot be anything other than what God has planned.
5.) Free-will doesn't exist. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FREEWILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD
1.) The Christian God is a personal being and is omniscient.
2.) Personal beings have free will.(according to most Christians)
3.) To have freewill, a personal being must be able to make a choice.
4.) A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5.) God has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore has no free will.
6.) Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
7.) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. - a syllogistic view of Dan Barker's F.A.N.G


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INFALLIBLE KNOWLEDGE / FREEWILL ARGUMENT
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.
3.) God has no Free-will. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON PRAYER
1.) Prayer is sometimes used to ask God to change a situation in one's life or anothers.
2.) God has a divine plan that cannot be changed.
3.) Prayer cannot be used to change any situation. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MORAL-KNOWLEGDE ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM
1.) If God exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
2.) If God exists, it would be in God's interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.
3.) All human beings do not know God's ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.
4.) Probably, God does not exist. - Niclas Berggren
(If one disagrees with P2, why would God NOT realize this option? "We could imagine two scenarios. First, a God which shows favoritism in the sense that he reveals his ethics only to some, or in the sense that he reveals it to a higher extent to some than to others. But this would be inconsistent with our assumption of benevolence, since such favoritism would imply that God cares more about some than about others (where knowledge of God's ethics must be considered a good, from the point of view of a benevolent God). (And in the Christian case, it is explicitly stated in Acts 10:34: "Then Peter began to speak: 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism'." (NIV)) Second, we could imagine God spreading a limited knowledge of his ethics in equal proportions to all of humanity. But (i) what could possibly be the point in such a self-imposed limitation of spreading something which, from the point of view of the benevolent God, must be considered a good? and (ii) this can hardly be the case, since not all people agree normatively on any issue of ethics (and if my point (ii) is disputed, the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is such agreement - and this has not been shown)." - Niclas Berggren


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL IGNORANCE
1.) If God exists, it is probably the case that all sentient beings whose behavior God considers morally significant have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
2.) If God exists, he considers humans' behavior morally significant.
3.) Humans are sentient beings.
4.) If God exists, it is probably the case that humans have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
5.) Humans do not have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
6.) Probably, God does not exist.- Cole Mitchell: Adapted from Niclas Berggren's "On the Nature of Morality".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM MORAL PARITY
1.) If God exists, rational theists are probably noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
2.) Rational theists are not noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
3.) Probably, God does not exist. - Paul Draper


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR NON-BELIEF ASSUMING THE CHRISTIAN GOD EXISTS
1.) The Christian God wants all men to know he exists so that they can be saved and go to Heaven.
2.) The Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnibenevolent.
3.) The Christian God knows what sufficient evidences he can provide to convince all men of his existence.
4.) Not all men are convinced of God's existence.
5.) The Christian God chooses to not provide sufficient evidence to convince all men that he exists.
6.) Therefore, The Christian God wants non-believers to exist.
NOTE: Atheists are non-Christians so this argument can be used to argue for atheism as well. [1] can be argued against on the outset, however, if one argues against this position, this would mean that God creates people just to go to hell. Doesn't sound like an all-good God to me. Most Calvinists will not have a problem with this or JW's, however, many Christians will find this disturbing. A typical rebuttle would be that God wishes for you to choose him freely. So he wants you to believe, but providing incontrovertible evidence would negate faith. Which God requires. The problem with this argument of course is that all religions have faith. So faith alone cannot lead people to the "right" God. Surely a God would know this. If so, he wants atheists to exist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM ASSUMING GOD EXISTS
1.) If the Christian God exists, everything that exists is part of his perfect, divine plan.
2.) Atheists exist.
3.) So, atheists are a part of God's perfect plan.
4.) Therefore, God wants atheists to exist. - Moloth



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT FROM JUDGEMENT
1.) If the Christian God exists, he will judge all men one day.
2.) At judgement, atheists will learn the truth, that there is a God.
3.) It follows then that God has the power to reveal himself to atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence.
4.) It follows from that, that God hasn't revealed himself to current atheists in a manner of which they cannot deny his existence, yet.
5.) Atheism is a tenable position. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(A counter argument is to state that God requires that we have faith. One would think that surely God would be intelligent enough to know that faith would not be a viable option to the atheist or even the non-christian to believe in him (Yahweh). He would therefore have to provide evidence if he wants us to accept him as a reality. If he doesn't, then it's on God, right?)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.

[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON SATAN FOOLING US - Evidence of Evolution
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing).
2.) God knew that before Creating Satan, that Satan would trick people with fossils and other evidence for evolution.
3.) God created Satan anyway.
4.) God wants, at least some, people to be tricked into believing in the evidences for evolution.
5.) It's logical to not believe in "divine creation". - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(This is a response to those that seriously believe Satan created fossils and that all of the sciences that support evolution are twisted by Satan. In regards to Divine Creation I am responding to the story of Adam and Eve.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMNISCIENCE-HUMAN EXPERIENCE INCOMPATIBILITY ARGUMENT
1.) Fear is a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger. (The American Heritage® Dictionary: 2000)
2.) If God exists, God cannot feel agitated, anxious or feel endangered.
3.) Since God cannot experience fear, he cannot know what it's like to fear, therefore not all-knowing. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
(Some would claim that it is against God's nature to be afraid. Exactly, then he cannot be omniscient. There are at least some things for which he is completely ignorant of. Stating that it's against his nature is a cop-out and a concession simultaneously.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true. - Reginald V. Finley, Sr
(Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, 'Through faith one can know God.')

[KC]

You think burden of proof shouldn't be applied equally?

Well, in a discussion only the claimant has the burden of proof. You should try reading those links more thoroughly and you might be able to understand it.


You think there is some kind of natural etiquette inherent in the universe where one who makes a positive statement must prove it categorically or the opposite is automatically true?

The opposite isn't "automatically" true. The thing is, though, that by failing to prove god's existence, you must logically believe that god could exist, making you an agnostic. So are you an agnostic?


They know nothing of WHY they opperate and continue to do so. Where is the explantion science has provided?

So your main argument is "because we don't know stuff, god exists". Again, you can't make this assumption and hold it to be true. You can merely say "god could exist" and consider it as a possiblity, which would make you an agnostic.


what is holding existence together.

Energy.



What if God was the universe, or the entirity of existence?

Well, then we'd call it "the universe" or "the entirety of existence" and not god. In fact, god wouldn't even be a conscious being and there would be no point in even talking about it like it's a being at all.


Then we'd be bumbing into him all the time huh?

"God" wouldn't be a man. God would be an inanimate object. So you would refer to it as "it" and wouldn't think it's magical anymore. In fact, your entire religion would be destroyed.


Idealist philosophers state we live in the minds of spirits as they cannot "prove" the existence of matter without allowing for the fact that it could be an illusion. Can you?

Of course, you can easily see the damage that religion causes. These people reject science in order to maintain their belief in "god".



Thanks for showing me how useful science is. Can't even disprove something which should be easily refutable if its soooo ridiculous.

I don't have to disprove anything. You have to prove it. I have repeatedly proven this to be true. So now the burden of proof is on you and I'm waiting for your evidence. If you cannot come up with any then you're wrong. I'm sorry, but that's just how it works.



I am agnostic about the spiders as I haven't been to Mars.

So now are you agnostic about god?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Phsycists know of the existence of too few of natures' laws. They know nothing of WHY they opperate and continue to do so. Where is the explantion science has provided?

That comment struck me, actually everything that really matters for our human world is already known. You stay so generell that i gotta think you know nothing of physics yourself but only heard from people. The only thing i can think of that science has no explanation for right now is the strange movement of the stars and universes. The logical conclusion most scientists support is though a matter that we cannot see at this moment in time, the so called "black matter".

I cant think of any "wonders" that couldnt be solved by science over a certain period of time.

Everything we didnt know, was always by some declared as magical. gigantic flood waves were the work of poseidon, thunders the penalty from zeus. over the years we found out its bullshit. lonely old women wondering around in england with a cat as their only friend were witches. religious believers see in everything that is not yet explained something magical, despite the fact that science has ALWAYS proven them wrong they will find more "prove" everytime the science discovers something new.

[fitzcarraldo]

Si Pinto

Fitzcaraldo - Let's say that your God does exist, and is 'in everything' and 'omniscient'.

What's so good about something that, allows disabled babies (and don't give me that crap about 'sins from a past life' as that makes God vindictive, i.e. God gives a second chance to people but still punishes them for their past actions).

I am not sure God cares about necessarily being good or fair. The Book of Job for instance is incomprehensively bizarre. It tells of a man who worshipped God and yet was punished by God. But we all know life sux, so why is this a surprise?


Why believe in a God that allows famine, the slaughter of innocents, Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair?
Reagan was a wonderful president. Do you know he is considered the greatest American. You must admit he was a patriot for freedom. Tony Blair is the agent of Satan.


If you believe that your God has any tangible powers, then your God is a Sadist, as God allows the suffering of Mankind, and Animalkind and Plantkind as well.
This is true, but should we not be thankful to Him that we are even alive? This proves God's love for us.


If you believe that God is the unification of human spirit (I used to believe this), then a Revolution is a God, a well supported football team is a God, ... the Beach Boys fan club is a God.
Why not? He himself is everywhere.



That's why there are so many religions around the world, each one is a 'fan club' (and I don't mean that offensively) of their particular beliefs.

And they all beleive in a more or less benevolent deity, which unifies us.

Monicattmed:

No, we use common sense. Since there is no evidence for God, the tooth fairy, ghosts, goblins, monsters under the bed, and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South, we assume that they DO NOT EXIST. It's up to you to provide EVIDENCE. So you think that just because there is no evidence that these creatures do NOT exist, that they do exist? Nope. You've got to provide EVIDENCE. How many times must I stress this?
What makes you beleive there is not a parallel universe in which Glinda the good witch of the South exists? If the universe is infinite, her existence is inevitable.


Absolutely. It's irrational and teaches that we can trash the world because there's an afterlife that lasts forever.

How can you be sure that isn't the case? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Have you died yet? ;) I would be interested to know how many dead people you have spoken to in making the positive assertion that there is no afterlife.

Raiseyavoice:


That comment struck me, actually everything that really matters for our human world is already known. You stay so generell that i gotta think you know nothing of physics yourself but only heard from people. The only thing i can think of that science has no explanation for right now is the strange movement of the stars and universes. The logical conclusion most scientists support is though a matter that we cannot see at this moment in time, the so called "black matter".

Why do photons fly from one end of the universe to the other? Because that's their perogative? Physicists know a lot, but in the scheme of things it really is nothing. Compared to the size of the universe we may as well be ants, or bacteria. How much do they know?

[KC]

fitz respond to my post.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Why do photons fly from one end of the universe to the other?


If the universe is infinite, her existence is inevitable.
i love people who are consistend. if the universe is infinite, how is there an end? xD

Also her existence is not at all inevitable because the same laws apply in the whole universe, so magic is not possible. Also the infinite universe could at some point just be completly empty.


You must admit he was a patriot for freedom

no one must do that sorry, dont try to make opinions facts please


Physicists know a lot, but in the scheme of things it really is nothing. Compared to the size of the universe we may as well be ants, or bacteria. How much do they know?
If gods biggest creation is humanity, i could say the scientist know alot, they know everything that affects our living. I already said religious believers will always find something undiscovered, which for them "proves" that scientist cant know if there is god.


Why do photons fly from one end of the universe to the other? Because that's their perogative?
And this has what to do with the existance of god? he sits on them and flys around the universe?


Why not? He himself is everywhere.
You saw him? experimentaly prove his existance? or just believe what some old men wrote down lots of years ago?


I would be interested to know how many dead people you have spoken to in making the positive assertion that there is no afterlife.
thats the point, they are dead so they dont speak, so they dont live. ;)


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Yes and thats why we should all believe in everything. You should be buddist, moslem, christian, hindu, atheist, believe in alliens. sorry but i dont think for anyone here the possibility something exists is a reason to believe in it. For many religions to appear there are alot of other motives than higher power. lots of factors in culture affect religions, powerfull people abuse the believe of people. sorry but there are too many indicators that religion is just made up crap, and there is no indicator whatsoever that there might be a god.

[RedAnarchist]

Most major religions were started at a time when people knew little about the world, the universe and even our own bodies. Therefore, we needed to make up an higher being, something which could simply explain our existence. These stories were then used by those in power to stay in power, gaining more wealth and power. As we have learnt more about life, religions wane, yet the religions are still being used in an attempt to control people. We've learnt so much about the universe - we've even sent robots to Mars - yet we are no closer to finidng this God. In fact, we have found no new evidence since the writing of the so-called "holy" books such as the Koran, the Talmud and the Bible. It is time, therefore, that we realise that we are not the creation of a higher being, but in actual fact a beautiful and complex sculpture, made up of naturally occuring materials.

[fitzcarraldo]

fitz respond to my post. Ok, why not.


QUOTE
You think burden of proof shouldn't be applied equally?



Well, in a discussion only the claimant has the burden of proof. You should try reading those links more thoroughly and you might be able to understand it.

You claim there is no God. This is not a positive claim? I imagine you must have some evidence for this, yet none is forthcoming, despite your invocation of the name of your deity 'science'. How odd?


The opposite isn't "automatically" true. The thing is, though, that by failing to prove god's existence, you must logically believe that god could exist, making you an agnostic. So are you an agnostic?
Why should I be agnostic? Everything has a creator does it not? Who built your house?


QUOTE
They know nothing of WHY they opperate and continue to do so. Where is the explantion science has provided?



So your main argument is "because we don't know stuff, god exists". Again, you can't make this assumption and hold it to be true. You can merely say "god could exist" and consider it as a possiblity, which would make you an agnostic.
No, my argument is we don't know enough to disprove God. You are an atheist are you not? You beleive God is impossible? Evidence? I would like some facts this time as to how the universe is really run.


QUOTE
what is holding existence together.



Energy.
And WHAT is energy? (I look forward to your answer. It will reveal your education!)


What if God was the universe, or the entirity of existence?



Well, then we'd call it "the universe" or "the entirety of existence" and not god. In fact, god wouldn't even be a conscious being and there would be no point in even talking about it like it's a being at all.
Some people consider the Earth a sentient organism in a higher level humans cannot perceive, with, or without their primitive science. Who am I to say what God is. You can call the universe what you will.


QUOTE
Then we'd be bumbing into him all the time huh?



"God" wouldn't be a man. God would be an inanimate object. So you would refer to it as "it" and wouldn't think it's magical anymore. In fact, your entire religion would be destroyed.

You have no wonder or veneration for the order of the universe? I do. I consider it Godlike. It might be nothing special for you though.


QUOTE
Idealist philosophers state we live in the minds of spirits as they cannot "prove" the existence of matter without allowing for the fact that it could be an illusion. Can you?



Of course, you can easily see the damage that religion causes. These people reject science in order to maintain their belief in "god".

You make the positive assertion no doubt that the data perceived by your sences is accurate. Can you prove this? I expect a proof from you. If not, by your own logic, science is fallicious and does not exist outside the confinds of illusion.


I don't have to disprove anything. You have to prove it. I have repeatedly proven this to be true. So now the burden of proof is on you and I'm waiting for your evidence. If you cannot come up with any then you're wrong. I'm sorry, but that's just how it works.

Now YOU have to prove the accuracy of sensory perception, the basis of science!


Yes and thats why we should all believe in everything. You should be buddist, moslem, christian, hindu, atheist, believe in alliens. sorry but i dont think for anyone here the possibility something exists is a reason to believe in it. For many religions to appear there are alot of other motives than higher power. lots of factors in culture affect religions, powerfull people abuse the believe of people. sorry but there are too many indicators that religion is just made up crap, and there is no indicator whatsoever that there might be a god.

I beleive in aliens. We are alien from the perspective of other planets are we not? And as for other Gods, well, could they not exist? I have my God but who am I to deny others theirs?


So now are you agnostic about god?
No because it is self evident to most of the world that God exists.

[Herman]

Reagan was a wonderful president. Do you know he is considered the greatest American. You must admit he was a patriot for freedom.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

That made me freakin' laugh so badly! I don't even want to start with what Reagan did...


I am not sure God cares about necessarily being good or fair. The Book of Job for instance is incomprehensively bizarre. It tells of a man who worshipped God and yet was punished by God. But we all know life sux, so why is this a surprise?

Then why not make it [life]... oh, I don't know... FAIR? It's something we socialists usually aim to do.


This is true, but should we not be thankful to Him that we are even alive? This proves God's love for us.

No, it just shows that he loves some and hates others. Mainly, he loves his followers and kills his enemies. No different from any bourgeois dictator. Of course, I'm thankful that i'm alive, but i'm certainly not thankful that an African kid is dying right now because of starvation.


Why not? He himself is everywhere.

I'd like some material proof of this. If you don't have any, you prove nothing.

I'm actually more inclined to believe in Ancient Greek gods mora so than christianity.


And they all beleive in a more or less benevolent deity, which unifies us.

Except for the fact that it doesn't unify at all.


How can you be sure that isn't the case? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Have you died yet? wink.gif I would be interested to know how many dead people you have spoken to in making the positive assertion that there is no afterlife.

Of course absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If it isn't there, it doesn't exist. We don't need to prove anything. The material proof isn't there, therefore there is nothing after death. You have to prove there is something after death.


Why do photons fly from one end of the universe to the other? Because that's their perogative? Physicists know a lot, but in the scheme of things it really is nothing. Compared to the size of the universe we may as well be ants, or bacteria. How much do they know?

It doesn't matter wether they know everything or nothing. The point is they have proven logically, though experiment and proof, that there are certain laws that apply everywhere, otherwise contradictions arise and this universe would be torn apart.

[RaiseYourVoice]

I beleive in aliens. We are alien from the perspective of other planets are we not? And as for other Gods, well, could they not exist? I have my God but who am I to deny others theirs?

We are but the question is if theres anyone out there. also isnt there only one god? your believe in your god comes from the way you were raised there if yours is right the other one is obviously wrong, but than again you say if somethings not proven wrong, its right to believe in it, so all these things must exist together and you can believe in all of them together, but than again you cannot because they exclude each other.


No because it is self evident to most of the world that God exists.
because they were told so. it has nothing to do with reason.


Why should I be agnostic? Everything has a creator does it not? Who built your house?
who created stones? god?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "fitzcarraldo"
You claim there is no God. This is not a positive claim? I imagine you must have some evidence for this, yet none is forthcoming, despite your invocation of the name of your deity 'science'. How odd?

Listen, this is how you argue.

1) A exists.
2) B, C, and D, is proof that A exists.
3) No, AA doesn't exist.
4) BB, CC, and DD, is proof that AA does not exist.

YOU are arguing for god, THEREFORE YOU must PROVE that he exists. YOU are stating that something is existing and YOU have the burden of proof!

I have stated this in more then one of your arguement threads, yet you haven't answered me, or even acknowleged me. You have no based arguement, and no sway in discussions until you prove that you have something to argue for!

[fitzcarraldo]

I have stated this in more then one of your arguement threads, yet you haven't answered me, or even acknowleged me. You have no based arguement, and no sway in discussions until you prove that you have something to argue for!

Sorry. Its because your argument is a clone of Ayathollah Communique. Must I answer seperatly? I have already proven the existence of God. If you presume the universe is infinite, you must accept there is room enough for infinite possibility, including God.

If you don't beleive me, you must at least beleive he exists in the minds of those who beleive in his existence. Hence he exists if there alone, for your purposes.

[KC]

You claim there is no God. This is not a positive claim?

Of course not. Obviously, you don't know much about logic and rules of debate.


Why should I be agnostic?

Because, since you haven't proven that god exists, you can only logically conclude that god could exist, but that it also could not.


Everything has a creator does it not?

Everything? Doubtful. You think there's such thing as the "beginning" of time?


Who built your house?

"Because one thing was created, that means that everything is created." Quite a convincing argument you have there! :lol:



No, my argument is we don't know enough to disprove God.

Okay, but we also don't have enough to prove god. This is why you can only logically come to the agnostic conclusion.


I would like some facts this time as to how the universe is really run.

Go learn some science. I'm not going to explain the entire universe to you in this post. Also, just because we don't know something doesn't prove the existence of god. This argument isn't supporting your assertion at all.



Some people consider the Earth a sentient organism in a higher level humans cannot perceive, with, or without their primitive science.

And they have just about as much proof as you do.


Who am I to say what God is.

You certainly considered the question when you said "maybe god is the universe or existence itself!" So what do you think god is? Describe the god that you believe in.


You can call the universe what you will.

Okay. I'll call it the universe. We have the word "universe" for a reason, you know.



You have no wonder or veneration for the order of the universe?

Of course not. What a waste of time.



You make the positive assertion no doubt that the data perceived by your sences is accurate. Can you prove this?

Easily. You see, the fact that we have been accurately able to describe a shitload about the universe using our senses shows that our senses are accurate.



Now YOU have to prove the accuracy of sensory perception, the basis of science!


Are you now denying the validity of science? Are you dismissing science for god? Wow, you're really spiralling here.



I beleive in aliens.

Well, believing that aliens exist is completely logical, as the statistical evidence is overwhelming.



No because it is self evident to most of the world that God exists.

As I have shown above, your reasoning and arguments bring you logically to the agnostic conclusion; you are just choosing to be an irrational nutcase.


have already proven the existence of God.

Where? Did I miss it? Or did you just "prove" that god could exist (which would make you logically an agnostic)?


If you presume the universe is infinite, you must accept there is room enough for infinite possibility

No you mustn't. The laws of physics apply everywhere within the universe. Accepting that there is "room enough for infinite possibility" would mean accepting that these laws could change, which is simply wrong.



If you don't beleive me, you must at least beleive he exists in the minds of those who beleive in his existence.

Well, sure. But then it's just a concept, or an idea. Nothing more.

[fitzcarraldo]

I answered your whole post and you have made chop suey of mine. Are you afraid of my difficult questions? Answer them or you are. Please resond to my whole post and I promise to answer all of yours. And don't tell me to learn some science, I am a scientist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:45 AM
I answered your whole post and you have made chop suey of mine. Are you afraid of my difficult questions? Answer them or you are. Please resond to my whole post and I promise to answer all of yours. And don't tell me to learn some science, I am a scientist.
He has addressed your points. If you didn't like the style in which he did so, tough titties! Either respond to his points in turn or concede.

[fitzcarraldo]

Concede what? That Ayatollah cannot explain the basis of science? That God cannot be negated? That I have proven the existence of the Lord? Very well, I concede. Discussion over.

EDIT: I mean I didn't come here claiming to offer proof of God. I was asked to, and responded. Now I ask the good ayatollah to offer proof that science describes objective reality and he ignores me. Oh well. I guess this place is a one way street. :rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That I have proven the existence of the Lord?

And where the fuck have you done that, precisely? Quote the post in which you proved the existance of god or have your posting priveleges permanently revoked, asshole.

In other words, BACK UP YOUR DAMN CLAIMS. I am sick and tired of trolls like you.

[fitzcarraldo]

Are all revolutionaries as lazy as you? Why don't you just hire a personal secretary? Its in the rythm methods thread. Its concerning the brain as an analysis tool. But don't bother even trying to debate me. Just threaten to ban me instead. Its a lot easier for your species.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:11 AM
Are all revolutionaries as lazy as you? Why don't you just hire a personal secretary? Its in the rythm methods thread. Its concerning the brain as an analysis tool. But don't bother even trying to debate me. Just threaten to ban me instead. Its a lot easier for your species.
And you're a different species? Wow. Never heard of another species posting on Internet forums before.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are all revolutionaries as lazy as you? Why don't you just hire a personal secretary? Its in the rythm methods thread. Its concerning the brain as an analysis tool.

Wow, that's really specific. And no, our ability to analyse does not prove the existance of god, try again.


But don't bother even trying to debate me. Just threaten to ban me instead.

I do not have such powers. And even if I did, I wouldn't unilaterally ban you because it's so much more fun ripping your pathetic "arguments" to shreds. I have indeed threatened to curtail your posting ability if you continue not debating in the manner you're currently doing, but that is not the same as a banning. So either improve your debating skills or shut the fuck up.


Its a lot easier for your species.

I suppose your pigeon brain finds concepts like "logic" hard to comprehend.

[RaiseYourVoice]

And don't tell me to learn some science, I am a scientist.
i LOL'ED, hard.


That I have proven the existence of the Lord?
you didnt prove anything. you said because people believe in god he has to be real, and that because we can analyse the world around us and many people believe in him. The problem is that you seem to have no idea of the human brain. we do have feelings!! ask a computer to analyse the evidence for god and the possibility that he exists. that'd be prove. humans are easily manipulated be it by religious believers, friends, foes or whatever. humans CAN annalyse but that doesnt mean they accept what they found out


Are all revolutionaries as lazy as you?
he just knew there nothing to find, he analysed the situation and guessed its a waste of time ;)


And you're a different species? Wow. Never heard of another species posting on Internet forums before.
DUDE its a "scientist" she must know! also she has been enlightened by god so she most know double !

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:22 AM

And don't tell me to learn some science, I am a scientist.
i LOL'ED, hard.


That I have proven the existence of the Lord?
you didnt prove anything. you said because people believe in god he has to be real, and that because we can analyse the world around us and many people believe in him. The problem is that you seem to have no idea of the human brain. we do have feelings!! ask a computer to analyse the evidence for god and the possibility that he exists. that'd be prove. humans are easily manipulated be it by religious believers, friends, foes or whatever. humans CAN annalyse but that doesnt mean they accept what they found out


Are all revolutionaries as lazy as you?
he just knew there nothing to find, he analysed the situation and guessed its a waste of time ;)


And you're a different species? Wow. Never heard of another species posting on Internet forums before.
DUDE its a "scientist" she must know! also she has been enlightened by god so she most know double !
I think even an 8th grader looking at protozoans under a microscope is a lot more of a "scientist" than she is. Just bolstering your argument a little.

Come on, fitz. You can do better than this.

[PRC-UTE]

I dearly hope this sets a trend for believers.

[*[email protected]*]

Na ha ah ha ha ha ha, Christian asshole! :lol:



Man I have to show this around where I live, Ha ha aha haha ha aha!!! :lol:

*Wipes humour tear from eye*