"You cannot prove a Negative" Another Claim?

I didn't say I'd considered how we got here. If I wanted to do so, I'd start reading science books, as scientists accept flaws found in their work. I certainly wouldn't look to religion, there's simply no way this can provide answers, past the warm and fuzzy feeling that someone is looking after me.

 

You certainly wont get the warm fuzzies from science,you shaved ape.. LOL


(You know I'm kidding, but really, not really.)

 

Exactly, but believing in a god, for which the only evidence is brought to me in two old books, neither of which were written at the time of the events, which have been translated and subsequently re-translated, which over the years have been interpretted by "Scholars", seems to provide me with less feeling of accuracy, than scientific process.

I'll tell you how I came to my current stance:

I think I was about 7 when I first realised my own mortality; that one day I would die. I cried and cried over this realisation, I was unconsolable even by my mum. Some years later it was still lingering in my mind and I decided to believe in reincarnation, it was a mental crutch which helped a child past quite an uncomfortable realisation. A few more years past, I became a youth and the reality of my mental crutch dawned on me. I realised that chosing to believe in "something", was not ultimately going to help. I realised I was going to die, the same as the 6Bn people who'd died before me and that would be that, for eternity, the infinity of time. I realised that when considering the duration of my life (lets say 80 years), infintiy effectively makes my lifespan zero. If I live to 100, 150, 1500 years old, it makes little difference in the context of infinity. I then understood that humans, with a sense of their own mortality are preprogrammed for religion; to help them survive through life, until the day they die.

With this realisation, I was liberated. I do not fear death, it could come tomorrow or in 50 years, it really does not make that much difference.

Saying that, of course I'd prefer the 50 years

 

Oh so books about science were written at the time of the event? What is the title of the scientific book about the Big Bang that was written at the time of the event?

 

And yet, you are still going to die. Everyone does.

And whether or not you have fear of death, and quite frankly if you tell me you do not - you are not being honest, has no bearing on whether there is a God or not.

Indeed, whether or not you fear death has no bearing on the evidence for God which is far more than just a couple of old books that you clearly haven't read.

Indeed, when I asked you about Jesus and the evidence regarding him ... you dodged.

When I point our miracles and other instances that point toward divinity ... you ducked.

When I point you to the sites that give a detailed scientific examination of God ... you avoid.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

When I point out that there is a great deal of scholarship that harmonizes religion and science ... you ignore.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

Yet despite this, you continue to claim that the ONLY evidence for God is a couple of old books you know nothing about? Now you speak of fear of death?

me thinks you know very little about God and whether he is there or not. I think you fear to discover that he is - because if he is ... well, he has a few rules and he does seem to hold people accountable, so, for example, you would not be able to repeat the same tired old line about there ONLY being a couple of old books when we know that is simply not the case. God has commandments about that stuff.

 

There are space probes taking pictures of galaxies far away. Probes going into the Sun. In the Alps, there's the haydron (sp?) particle smasher, finding particles never dreamt of 50 years ago. 10's of 1000's of scientists, all working on hypothesis and proving or disproving (BY EXPERIMENT) other people's hypothesis. And when someone disproved anothers work, the originator is happy! Happy that they've go a little closer to the truth.

Religion is different. It does not seak critism, it does not seak the truth. It does not seak independent verification; organised religion is dogmatic.

But this is all irrelvant to my being an atheist, I do not need science to "prove" the existance of the Higgs Boson particle, in order for me to say there is no evidence of god. Because there is simply no evidence of god. IF scientists eventually, can scientifically determine the origins of the Universe, GREAT! If they prove the existance of a "creator", GREAT! Then there'll be evidence.

But scientific evidence is stacking up. We first believed it was all created in 6 days, then humans realised what a load of old bollocks, they didn't live 900 years in a land with giants and talking snakes, we'll stop believing in that particular part of the bible. Why did we stop believing in creationalism? Because we're simply more knowledgable and intelligent that several thousand years ago.

 

I have repeatedly asked you to type your own words to describe the evidence for god. You have not, at any time done so.

Do not accuse me of dodging anything until you provide what I've asked.

 

There are two links that provide you exactly what you are asking for in the quoted portion of your response. If you are too lazy to read them, that is no one's fault but yours.

If you fail to read them, and then get pissy because someone wonders why you are not reading EXACTLY what you asked for? Well, that is just immature.

If you don;t want something, don;t ask for it. If you do ask for it, and get it ... grow up and read it.

Atheists

If teh only thing that is preventing you from reading something is the desire that I type it out for you, that is about the lamest excuse I have ever seen. There are four examples above, feel free to tackle any one of them - or you can simply acnowledge the point that there is indeed a LOT of evidence God.

The idea that it has to be forced fed to you and smacked over your head to acknowledge a simple point is absurd.

 

I will not discuss this further with you. You have nothing and pretty much every reader of this forum knows so. You have no personal opinion, no personal thoughts. I find it rather sad that religion has done this to you and hoope in the future that a sense of enlightenment comes to you.

Goodbye.

 

All of the above is a very interesting perspective from you. However, none of it addresses the question that I posed to you about the Big Bang and the book that was written at the time of that event. So your avoidance of touching on that subject question tells me that all the printed material from scientists regarding the Big Bang is just a bunch of stuff written by people who were not even there to witness what was actually going on. In other words, all that BB stuff is just sheer speculation, guesswork, imagination hard at work. OK.

 

Whatever, another atheist with an ego problem and the inability to acknowledge that he is in error.

And of course, when acting like a jerk, its best to justify the jerkish behavior by blaming the other person for it.

Its quite simple, there is plenty of evidence for God. Its been repeatedly provided for you both in my words and in documented sources. Acknowledging this is apparently too much for you?

And somehow, if I drink some magic elixir, I'll become enlightened and think insulting people and sticking my head in the sand when it comes to facts will be a better path?

Atheists.

Unfortunately, everyone knows you are not to be trusted.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/Strib Atheist Faith and Values.html

Yet the response, "I am not going to debate you any further - you suck!" - is supposed to be an example of a rebuttal to the statement that ONLY a couple of old books is the entirety of the evidential record of religion or God.

Another atheist reduced to insults and having to manuever behind the scence to spread malicious rumors rather than debate.

Sad, sad religion.

 

Allah (God)...

if Allah (God) who created everything, and running
the order, all knowing and almighty.

shouldn't there be laws beyond time?
shouldn't religion and science be parallel and intertwined?

not one or the other.
it should be both, going together.

for Allah (God) is the source.

what if you find science in a religious book?
would it make sense?

without religion science is cripple.
without science and understanding of our surrounding
religion is not verifiable to the logic, but only to the heart.

i am not talking about mythology and fairy tales.
prepare your questions about life and creation...
then read.

example questions:

• why is there evil in this world?
• if Allah (God) created all matter, who created him?
• what is the purpose of this life?
• why are there multiple religions?
• what's the vision of Allah (God) for humanity?

but don't wait too long to find answers.
life isn't that long.

without finding the reason why you exist,
this life does not make sense.

my humble advice is:
pick a book and start reading.
whether it's science or something else...
consider qur'an too if you want to...

run after the answers.
like it is your only motivation to live.

i found all my answers in the qur'an.
with reason and with heart.

some people find it elsewhere...
but you must look it up.
it's an obligation for everyone.

take care.

 

Actually, I believe that Neutral has been very opinionated. and further the opinions that he has expressed are (for the most part) his own opinions. So in view of that observation, I think it is just a matter of you abandoning the argument because you finally realized that you cannot make him drop that shield of faith that would allow you to make him a good target. Oh well. seeing that you are now leaving... I wish you the best ... have a nice life.

 

OK. To be clear. I'm not that interested in that level of science, although I understand the basic principles of the big bang theories. I neither believe nor disbelieve them - they are too distant from my day to day life for me to occupy my time reading about them.

However, indeed you are correct, bigbang theory was documented billions of years after the singularity event (if it actually happened).

The difference is that (and I'm repeating myself now), scientific theory is being tested. As we speak, scientists of CERN are smashing particles together and measuring the results. Attempting to find the evidence to support these theories - this is how science works.

Therefore you are incorrect in saying it's "sheer speculation, guesswork, imagination hard at work". It's either going to be proved or disproved.

Now please show me any thing which religious scholars are doing to prove or disprove the bibles!

 

When he offers evidence of god, using his own words, which does not rely upon the bible, we can start up again. But he has not and will not.

 

look, we can all sugar coat the religious BS all we want..ain't it nice believing that if we're mister goodie 2 shoes here on earth that we will magically be transported to a mystical heaven where everything we ever dreamed of is a reality and that we can have 40 virgin wives, all the pizza u can eat and maybe even In-n-Out burgers delivered to your pad in heaven along with a bottle of bourbon and some premo buds..or wtf..lets get reincarnated into some dickhead we'd like to be or better yet a toy poodle that will belong to a super model so that we can lick her breasts..
get real, it's very simple and just except it..when you die you die and there is nothing after life..finito, done, over with..end of subject..
if believing in fairy tales makes you happy then more power to you..
prost!

 

And I'm happy for you. I however found my answers in life.

 

Exactly. Other than the "primo buds" part, which is an oxy-moron

I do understand however that the In and Out Burgers are very good!

Incidentally, the god of the first bible was not a goodie two shoes, he was a vindictive authoritarian, there was a lot a smiting back then. In the second installment of the bible, god had a change of heart and became a lot more cuddly and lovable.

 

None of the evidence I provided was based on the Bible.

Additionally, I categorically asked you to address the evidence for Jesus, asked you pointedly if you were a Jesus Myther, and why, given that the New Testament is written to the same evidential standards as any volume of history should simply be ignored?

Those are my own words, and, exactly as charged, you dodged. Again.

Your contention is simply wrong.

But you don't like having your faith challenged? Well, then why would you think it would be a good idea to jump into a forum and discuss other people's faith?

Where o where are those atheists who preach the simple non-religious principle of the Golden Rule?

 

Well, I guess the faith in that is better than the faith in something. That is clearly science talkin' there.

 

How would you know? It's not even evidence according to you.

I guess the whole messiah thing is lost on you?

We are all glad to see that any opinion that is not religious, supported by nothing, is deemed acceptable by you however.

 

The fact of the matter is this: You and other non-theists will not accept evidence that is supplied to you.

Example: Suppose that a trial was taking place in the state of Ohio and the issues of the trial were of a Religious nature.

The first immediate rule pertaining to evidence of the witnesses; would be rule 610 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.

"RULE 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced."

More simply stated, the testimony of a religious person cannot be discredited on the basis that the credibility of the witness is impaired or enhanced because of the beliefs of the witness.

Second rule on evidence to be considered is Rule 602
"RULE 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses."

If the issue at the trial is the personal religious experience of the witness, then you can clearly see in the above rule, that this witness testifying about his/her own personal religious experience would be considered an expert witness. wherein rule 703 would be taken into consideration.

RULE 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by the expert or admitted in evidence at the hearing.

So you see, even in the secular courtrooms, on religious issues, The beliefs of the witness has a pressing impact upon even those secular courts. Yet the non-theists object to such evidence, even though such evidence is acceptable to the legal system of (in the case above) the state of Ohio.

So why won't the non-theists accept such evidence???? Arrogance and self worship... thinking that they are above the laws of the land.

 

If the case went to court of determining if jesus did or did not feed the 5000, the bible would not be admissible as evidence. Fact.

 

Bad philosophy IMO. I all rests on the assumption that such things don't/can't happen because no one ever sees them happen.

Judges aren't historians, so I could care less on what they think.

 

I like how atheists are arrogant but how many stories do you hear where someone says that god saved them (they were a survivor where many died)? Oh yeah, that's not arrogant at all!