Awesome things "god" does.

[winsor 236]

Quote

I am not the kind of douchebag who would consider giving you one

That's my point...I think you would, if you had more muscle than brains.

You guys abuse your intellect in the same way a bully abuses his strength.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am not the kind of douchebag who would consider giving you one

That's my point...I think you would, if you had more muscle than brains.

You guys abuse your intellect in the same way a bully abuses his strength.

As usual, you speak entirely for yourself.

Come back if you ever get a clue.

[JeanJeanie 0]

Quote

so your reponse boils down to no matter what god does be it something good or bad, "God is holy, just, trustworthy, and sovereign".

Don't forget "acts with impunity"

~~We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly~~MLK

[maadmax 0]

I am not the kind of douchebag who would consider giving you one

That's my point...I think you would, if you had more muscle than brains.

You guys abuse your intellect in the same way a bully abuses his strength.

[DanJohnson 0]

. *** If there is anybody among the intellectually gifted with the answers to life's mysteries I am all ears.

Quote

Hey ears, I'm not particularly intellectualy gifted but I do have the answers to lifes mysteries.
You do as well.
Instead of seeking outside of yourself you should look within for every answer.

• Quote

[DanJohnson 0]

***It seems that you very seldom make a point without attempting to insult somebody...(pinky salute)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Bad logic. Very bad logic. You may fool yourself but it won't fool anyone else (except maybe Coreece). You have NO evidence to support your myths.

BS you have no evidence to refute it.

Utter nonsense. The burden is on the believers of the spiritual to prove their belief, not on others to disprove it. That's truly as basic as it gets.

You get an F in Logic 101.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I know some like to think they are intellectual, but I am still waiting for an intelligent counter argument. All I hear is , dats tupid, your tupid, you don't even gots a clue, God is not real because people in Africa suffer, all you got to say is the dumbest tings I ever hear. God can't exist because He doesn't meet my expectations. and on and on and on. If there is anybody among the intellectually gifted with the answers to life's mysteries I am all ears....

Can't get any simpler than that. They don't have any and can't stand the fact that you may have found one for personal yourself.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bad logic. Very bad logic. You may fool yourself but it won't fool anyone else (except maybe Coreece). You have NO evidence to support your myths.

BS you have no evidence to refute it.

Utter nonsense. The burden is on the believers of the spiritual to prove their belief, not on others to disprove it. That's truly as basic as it gets.

You get an F in Logic 101.

Boy. You blew this one Andy.

Nonbelievers are the plaintiffs....prove your case.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bad logic. Very bad logic. You may fool yourself but it won't fool anyone else (except maybe Coreece). You have NO evidence to support your myths.

BS you have no evidence to refute it.

Utter nonsense. The burden is on the believers of the spiritual to prove their belief, not on others to disprove it. That's truly as basic as it gets.

You get an F in Logic 101.

Boy. You blew this one Andy.

Nonbelievers are the plaintiffs....prove your case.

Sorry, my friend. You've simply got it backwards.

[DanJohnson 0]

He's got plaintiff/defendant backwards, but his theory seems correct - is not the burden of proof on the accuser?

[Coreece 190]

Quote

I am not the kind of douchebag who would consider giving you one

That's my point...I think you would, if you had more muscle than brains.

You guys abuse your intellect in the same way a bully abuses his strength.

I know some like to think they are intellectual, but I am still waiting for an intelligent counter argument. All I hear is , dats tupid, your tupid, you don't even gots a clue, God is not real because people in Africa suffer, all you got to say is the dumbest tings I ever hear. God can't exist because He doesn't meet my expectations. and on and on and on. If there is anybody among the intellectually gifted with the answers to life's mysteries I am all ears.


...

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bad logic. Very bad logic. You may fool yourself but it won't fool anyone else (except maybe Coreece). You have NO evidence to support your myths.

BS you have no evidence to refute it.

Utter nonsense. The burden is on the believers of the spiritual to prove their belief, not on others to disprove it. That's truly as basic as it gets.

You get an F in Logic 101.

Boy. You blew this one Andy.

Nonbelievers are the plaintiffs....prove your case.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

I am not the kind of douchebag who would consider giving you one

That's my point...I think you would, if you had more muscle than brains.

You guys abuse your intellect in the same way a bully abuses his strength.

I know some like to think they are intellectual, but I am still waiting for an intelligent counter argument. All I hear is , dats tupid, your tupid, you don't even gots a clue, God is not real because people in Africa suffer, all you got to say is the dumbest tings I ever hear. God can't exist because He doesn't meet my expectations. and on and on and on. If there is anybody among the intellectually gifted with the answers to life's mysteries I am all ears.


...

Yes, similar to most bullies in that they just project a particular facade.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

He's got plaintiff/defendant backwards, but his theory seems correct - is not the burden of proof on the accuser?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

All I hear is , dats tupid, your tupid, you don't even gots a clue, God is not real because people in Africa suffer, all you got to say is the dumbest tings I ever hear. God can't exist because He doesn't meet my expectations. and on and on and on.

If that's all you hear then it sounds like you're really, really good at ignoring anything that challenges your worldview. And while that might be nice for your peace of mind I'm not sure how you ever expect to learn anything.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[maadmax 0]

Not in the least, the burden of proof always rest with the person making the claim. If I claim there is an invisable man under my bed, and if you disagree, do you bare the burden to provide the proof to prove me wrong? Unless I provide to you convincing evidence, you can reject my claim outright.

[winsor 236]

Quote

Not in the least, the burden of proof always rest with the person making the claim. If I claim there is an invisable man under my bed, and if you disagree, do you bare the burden to provide the proof to prove me wrong? Unless I provide to you convincing evidence, you can reject my claim outright.

Now I get why atheists are so confused. You are looking for people to prove to you that God exists.
That responsibility rests with God alone. I have accepted the over whelming proof God has given me. HE IS REAL!!!

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Now I get why atheists are so confused. You are looking for people to prove to you that God exists.
That responsibility rests with God alone. I have accepted the over whelming proof God has given me. HE IS REAL!!!

[maadmax 0]

Cluelessness score = 10

Now I get why atheists so confuse me. They are looking for people to prove to them that Leprechauns exist.
That responsibility rests with The King of the Leprechauns alone. I have accepted the over whelming proof Leprechauns have given me. THEY ARE REAL!!

[winsor 236]

Quote

Cluelessness score = 10

Now I get why atheists so confuse me. They are looking for people to prove to them that Leprechauns exist.
That responsibility rests with The King of the Leprechauns alone. I have accepted the over whelming proof Leprechauns have given me. THEY ARE REAL!!

Let me play, let me play.

INTELLECTUAL INTELLIGENT ANSWER SCORE = 0

Quote

You were expecting intelligence in response to stupidity? What a concept.

300LB INTELLECTUAL GIANT SCORE = 0

MOST IMPRESSED BY THEIR OWN INTELLECT SCORE = 10

Quote

Please cite where anyone claimed to be intelligent.

There is a big difference between being impressed with intelligence and being appalled by stupidity.

GRASP OF REALITY SCORE = 0

Quote

Having one's grasp of reality questioned by someone whose best friend is invisible is a backhanded compliment.

COMPREHENSION OF LIFE'S MEANING SCORE = 0

Quote

"Live for a while, die and be forgotten. So it goes."

Kurt Vonnegut

Sorry, the sum of your combined scores does not make a passing grade. Please try again later.


...

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

HE IS REAL!!!

Yup. Just as real as Thor who causes lightning and that giant fish that lives under Japan and causes earthquakes.










Your claims of the supernatural are no better than, and no less ridiculous than all the other similar claims made in the past. Your tap dancing around the massive holes in the current mythology is pitiful.
You've been duped. Hoodwinked. Bamboozled!
Please wake up. Humanity needs people to engage their brains!

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Maybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.

Why is it "Atheistic" to accept that the Big Bang is a likely explaination for the creation of the universe?

I have no problem accepting that many/most scientific explainations for how the world and universe got to where we are now.

That doesn't change my beliefs in God.

It does affect my belief that a collection of stories handed down over many, many years, collected into a book that was subsequently edited and altered (both in interpretation and actual form) over many more years is going to be factually accurate. Especially when the knowledge of how things actually worked at the time the book was written was extremely inadequate (How many elements do we recognize today?).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you don't have the burden of proving God does not exist but you do have the burden to prove that the universe did in fact come into existence ex nihilo by some other naturalistic means (if that is your atheistic stance).....or that it has always been, on its own (which you cannot prove scientifically). If you could prove such a thing, you would prove what you said you didn't have to in the first place, though. Good luck! Seems unreasonable, however, to the majority of us that the irreducible complexity in the things we see came about by something other than an intelligent mind.

Why is it "Atheistic" to accept that the Big Bang is a likely explaination for the creation of the universe?

I have no problem accepting that many/most scientific explainations for how the world and universe got to where we are now.

That doesn't change my beliefs in God.

It does affect my belief that a collection of stories handed down over many, many years, collected into a book that was subsequently edited and altered (both in interpretation and actual form) over many more years is going to be factually accurate. Especially when the knowledge of how things actually worked at the time the book was written was extremely inadequate (How many elements do we recognize today?).

You're obviously not a fundamentalist.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[jaybird18c 24]

Quote

Natural selection has a very gradual increase in complexity. All it takes is for a change, no matter how small, to thrive in the gene pool of a species is it creating a slight favor in reproduction rates. It stands to reason that a "slightly" mobile bacteria, due to porting proteins through its cellular membrane, might have a slight advantage in reproduction due to exposure to a wider environment. Later generations with slightly more sophisticated or efficient "motor" systems allowing them to be more mobile would then carry the torch on and on.

Reproduction occurs and genes are passed along to offspring. Some offspring receive traits which give them a survival advantage in a particular environment. Those genes keep getting passed along and the organism becomes more specialized for its environment. The other offspring, without the genetic advantages, tend to die off. The specialization leads to a net loss of genetic information. This is the exact opposite situation needed for an organism to increase in complexity. It is in fact de-evolution in the NDT evolution sense of the term. Variation occurs and gives a survival advantage to some. We can see that. However, that is not the kind of change you’re looking for in order for molecules-to-man “evolution” to take place. I’ll use one quote to describe what you’re trying to do with natural selection. “You can’t lose a little money on every sale and expect to make it up in volume.” Even modern evolutionists (New Darwinian Theory) don’t agree with what you said. They had to add random mutation combined with natural selection and billions of years in order to make it work. Natural selection is not a creative process. It conserves those traits of the “fittest” and discards those of the “weak” (e.g. loss of information). Those original traits cannot be recovered, even in part, unless you were able to cross-breed them back with some that didn’t die off. Even then, you’d still be working with a quantifiable amount of information that you began with. Nothing would exist by which you could build in complexity to “the next level.” Now, the mutation and millions of years is another argument but you’re going to need something else that what you’re describing with natural selection.