Does God Exist?

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
And your evidence that supports this claim is...? I could just as well say a peanut butter fairy lives up my ass and determines who wins the weekly lottery, since we don't have to present any evidence for our claims here.

I understand that,

Quote:
Got evidence nor not?

Yes. Now tell me first if you have problems with the concept itself and if so, why?

Which one? Telepathy or the peanut butter fairy up my ass? Wink

As for telepathy and the like, I suspend judgment on any metaphysical claim until there is conclusive empirical evidence provided. If you're making the claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. Otherwise, there's no more reason to believe your claims over anyone else's.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Which one? Telepathy or the peanut butter fairy up my ass?

As for telepathy and the like, I suspend judgment on any metaphysical claim until there is conclusive empirical evidence provided. If you're making the claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. Otherwise, there's no more reason to believe your claims over anyone else's.

Telepathy? Duh? I wan't talking about that at all! would be in the thread about esp!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Quote:
Which one? Telepathy or the peanut butter fairy up my ass?

As for telepathy and the like, I suspend judgment on any metaphysical claim until there is conclusive empirical evidence provided. If you're making the claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it. Otherwise, there's no more reason to believe your claims over anyone else's.

Telepathy? Duh? I wan't talking about that at all! would be in the thread about esp!

OK, so what are you claiming to have evidence for? That Dawkins is a liar? If so, you still haven't presented any. You went from liar to biased, and I agreed that that's probably true, but if you're insisting on the liar claim, you still haven't proven it. Sheldrake proved his liar claim against Randi with printed copies of communications between them. Got anything that proves Dawkins has lied in the course of defending/promoting his skepticism?

4 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

That Dawkins is a liar? If so, you still haven't presented any. You went from liar to biased, and I agreed that that's probably true, but if you're insisting on the liar claim, you still haven't proven it. Sheldrake proved his liar claim against Randi with printed copies of communications between them. Got anything that proves Dawkins has lied in the course of defending/promoting his skepticism?

I have presented it to you. However if you are not capable of accepting it, so be it. I really think he is an enormous liar, AND when it comes to evolution he doesn't even know to use mathematical statisticc for this evolution nonsense. Maybe he knows deep down that he better not start calculating. Wink

Quote:

OK, so what are you claiming to have evidence for?

man o man o man o man.
It really seems you don't read too well!
The last thing I was writing about was about this universe permeated with a logaritmic standing wave. And this wave seems to be have superior intelligence. So, maybe we can call this...God?

where do these people come from indeed?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Dawkins is a liar because he strenuously claims that there is only one way to consider the facts of life and it is a way which cannot condemn serial adultery and his disproportionate wealth.

2 Replies

@FBM,

And, furthermore, the application of evolution to human affairs is the very last thing Dawkins would welcome.

1 Reply

@FBM,

For the materialist, FB, thoughts can only be physical objects of an electro-chemical nature and thus they will produce radiations of the same nature as those which mobile phones receive. It is possible, as a hypothesis, that some people might be sensitive enough to pick them up in certain circumstances.

Evolution would necessarily rule out telepathy in the general case but the movements of large flocks of birds and shoals of fish may be examples of telepathy in the service of evolution.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

I have presented it to you. However if you are not capable of accepting it, so be it.

Yep. So be it. You've presented nothing but rhetoric, don't seen to understand the difference, and I'm done discussing it. It's getting us nowhere.

Quote:

I really think he is an enormous liar, AND when it comes to evolution he doesn't even know to use mathematical statisticc for this evolution nonsense. Maybe he knows deep down that he better not start calculating.

Pot calling the kettle black it seems. Where's your mathematics? You see, what you think = your opinion. Not evidence.

Quote:

man o man o man o man.
It really seems you don't read too well!

To the contrary; I'm quickly losing interest. You don't seem to have anything substantial that you can present.

Quote:

The last thing I was writing about was about this universe permeated with a logaritmic standing wave. And this wave seems to be have superior intelligence. So, maybe we can call this...God?

You can call it a peanut butter fairy, if you like. Until you produce some genuine evidence, not just rhetoric and imagination, I'm going to call it your unsupported claim.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Dawkins is a liar because he strenuously claims that there is only one way to consider the facts of life and it is a way which cannot condemn serial adultery and his disproportionate wealth.

I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to recognize at least two ways to consider the facts of life: those that can be supported with evidence and those that can't.

The bits about his sex life and wealth are ad homs and red herrings. They say nothing about the quality of his ideas related to science.

Once again, I am not a Dawkins fan or foe. I don't really give a **** about him one way or another. I would be responding similarly if you were accusing Hitler of being a cross-dresser. You need to bring some real evidence, not just rhetoric, imagination and logical fallacies. Give me a solid reason why to believe your claim and I'll happily accept it. Until then, I just see empty claims.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

And, furthermore, the application of evolution to human affairs is the very last thing Dawkins would welcome.

Social Darwinism has been debunked for decades. I'm pretty sure he's up-to-date on that.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

For the materialist, FB, thoughts can only be physical objects of an electro-chemical nature and thus they will produce radiations of the same nature as those which mobile phones receive. It is possible, as a hypothesis, that some people might be sensitive enough to pick them up in certain circumstances.

I agree that it's hypothetically possible. Now all we need is some genuine evidence. Sheldrake is working on it, but it's a work in progress. I'll suspend judgment until he and his colleagues are done.

Quote:

Evolution would necessarily rule out telepathy in the general case but the movements of large flocks of birds and shoals of fish may be examples of telepathy in the service of evolution.

Why would evolution rule out telepathy? I'd think natural selection would select for it, given its potential in enhancing a person's ability to survive and reproduce his/her genes. I don't see any theoretical objection to it, except that the evidence is currently lacking, and without evidence there's no reason to believe one hypothesis over another.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Dawkins is a liar because he strenuously claims that there is only one way to consider the facts of life and it is a way which cannot condemn serial adultery and his disproportionate wealth.

Is you spent less time in other people's pants you might have your own sex life.

1 Reply

Dawkins said the eye is badly designed because it's "wired up back to front".
But even though biologists have corrected him, he hasn't retracted what he said (as far as i know), so that makes him a fibber for letting his lie stand.. Smile

Biologist Richard Lumsden says: ".. if the rods and cones were turned around to face the incoming light, as Dawkins requires, the pigment layer would have to be between the light and the light receptors, thus blocking vision altogether! In short, it is just as well that God, not Professor Dawkins, designed the eye"
http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front

PS- other lying atheists that spring to mind are TV's David Attenborough for trying to pass off zoo-born polar bear cubs as being born "in the wild", and lying atheist authors who are still saying Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time.
It seems atheists are just natural-born liars... Wink

3 Replies

More rhetoric, still no evidence.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

Quote:
Dawkins said the eye is badly designed because it's "wired up back to front".
But even though biologists have corrected him, he hasn't retracted what he said (as far as i know), so that makes him a fibber for letting his lie stand..

Biologist Richard Lumsden says: ".. if the rods and cones were turned around to face the incoming light, as Dawkins requires, the pigment layer would have to be between the light and the light receptors, thus blocking vision altogether! In short, it is just as well that God, not Professor Dawkins, designed the eye"
http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front

PS- other lying atheists that spring to mind are TV's David Attenborough for trying to pass off zoo-born polar bear cubs as being born "in the wild", and lying atheist authors who are still saying Nazareth never existed in Jesus's time.

It seems atheists are just natural-born liars...

I agree with you that they lie to their teeth. But it has nothing to do with atheism. They are psychopaths, like Obama and other presidents.
Once they are important actors on the world stage, I know they are recruited because they are psychopaths! And what do psychopaths with no conscience?
Right, they lie! And why do they need people that lie? Because this whole wordl is build upon lies, lies and lies.See, makes perfect sense!
And what do they lie about? evolution, science, relativity, politics, medicine, vaccines, fluoride, peakoil, free energy and so on and so forth.
Difficult to imagine? yes, I agree. It is a process and it takes time.

0 Replies

@RexRed,

Quote:

Is you spent less time in other people's pants you might have your own sex life.

Your cheap and easy jibe Rex, for which you have no evidence other than my advanced years, and is likely something of a reflex action which you summon up when a suitable occasion arises, does have one advantage from my point of view in that it allows me to respond in kind.

I don't consider your activities to be sex at all and, indeed, see them as an escape from sex and a glorified form of wanking probably due to either a fear of women or a distaste for them which are both strategies for avoiding becoming entangled with one.

My long and protracted experience of real sex certainly confirms the dangers women represent for men and it is understandable that males, defined biologically, of a nervous disposition should take the precaution you have adopted.

It is easy to see that your jibe is cheap and easy from the long list of A2Kers who have similarly embarrassed themselves by using it.

On the subject of sex I can take you to the cleaners and you are lucky that I am polite enough to confine myself to the rather simple remarks I have with which most people agree.

I can barely bring myself to shake hands with a bloke and only ever do so when social proprietary demands it. The last time I recall was when I won the President's Prize at the golf club and could not avoid his horrible little sweaty paw.

It seems on the evidence of A2K that Americans have a proclivity to insult others without realising that they are opening themselves up to replies in kind and condoning them.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

It seems atheists are just natural-born liars...

O Romeo Romeo, where for art thy common sense. Deny thy ridiculous belief in the boogy man and refuse thy superstition!

1 Reply

@giujohn,

It's true mate, every atheist I've ever known in my life has been an untrustworthy lying git who cares only about himself/herself!
Some atheists are better than others of course, but you can always rely on them all to let you down sooner or later.. Smile

"To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled" (Titus 1:15)

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

O Romeo...go into ANY prison in the world and you know what you will find??? The highest percentage of religious gits per capita than in any other population...and Im not counting the ones who conform after going in.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

It's true mate, every atheist I've ever known in my life has been an untrustworthy lying git who cares only about himself/herself!
Some atheists are better than others of course, but you can always rely on them all to let you down sooner or later..(smarmy emoticon removed)

We simply just don't experience the same world, Romeo. I've noticed the contrary. The morality of atheists is pretty much the same as those of any 'religion'. Consider Paul's words at Romans 2: 14,15:

Quote:

For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts . . .

I believe we call that conscience.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know