Svt4Ever, can you state with absolute certainty that the Invisible Purple Unicorn doesn’t exist?
I mean Svt4Him not Svt4Ever. Sorry about the Freudian slip there.
Atheism is not a religion. It has no ceremonial practices, no holy book, no gatherings to worship the non-existence of a God, etc.
And similarly, and which you have not yet done, to say there is God requires absolute proof.
Follow your own rules, then.
Right, then. Post your proof of the existence of God.
And there’s more than just that. There are threads on, say, the whole “gay bishop resigns” issue, etc.
You haven’t been here long, so it’s understandable that you don’t know about those. But we’ve had some. And of course there is more to fighting ignorance and related things than just this MB.
Or, or … here’s a thought … he should post his objection. If you have a problem with that, do bring it up. I’m sure someone will be along to rebut it in due time.
Well!!
nosy…
[high school/teenager reference]Damn, gobear got BACK![/high school/teenager reference]
Would this have anything to do with that stuff about “bearbacking” that was in the news a whole ago? :o
I thought it was “barebacking”, and in any event, no:p I was referring to the notion of vanilla covering some aspect of gobear’s rear and the “gobear got back” was a reference to “[person] got back!” meaning they have a nice ass.
And now that I’ve explained the joke away so all humor is lost, I’m off to a party-type thing, where I will most decidedly NOT have an opportunity to tell this story.
::chases Poly out of the thread::
And explained away my play off your joke, too! 
Not in the nude, I hope!
Bear backing sounds pretty dangerous. Plus, I don’t think humans and bears are compatible that way.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gobear *
**Nonesense. You make the claim that God exists, you back it up. The evidence thus far indicates that no God exists, or at least not a God who is both all powerful and all good. Even if one can trace manny current troubles to the consequences of sin, that still does not idicate any reason why an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would permit earthquakes, infant leukemia, and other disasters that afflict the innocent. [/qyote]
What evidence are you referring to? If I look at a painting, what evidence is there that a painter exists? The painting itself. If I look at a building, the building itself is evidence a builder exists. There is also the fact that I’ve experienced God. If you and I were describing how an iron is hot, and someone comes, grabs the iron, it’s not our arguments that will persuade, it’s the fact that his knowledge is now experience. To experience a knowledge of sin and then a knowledge of forgiveness was an amazing thing for me. To experience the healing of God as well as a fear of God allows me to hear about how healings don’t happen, but not to argue about it.
This argument makes sense? If you are talking about probability through a representative sample, you will also have to include deviation and error. This was in reference to the statement that there is no God, and to that I say that that statement can’t be made unless you were willing to admit that the 98% of all knowledge that you don’t know, the possibility of God’s existence may be an unknown to you. So again, the statement is more that you don’t believe there is a God, but there may be. As for pathetically blind faith, can you give me a reference? As for science, I have yet to see science disprove this blind faith, and has even changed to more line up with Biblical truth. But first I ask you to cite what blind faith you were referring to.
I have no idea what ‘Left Behind’ has to do with this, as it seems terribly irrelevant to the argument, but when you say the vast majority are backwards, ignorant, I will disagree. When you say that you see no joy, kindness, forgiveness and charity, I agree, sadly enough, that the vast majority are like that. People have a form of Godliness, but lack any power. I have no disagreement, apart from the fact that there are people who do have joy, are kind and forgiving, and promote charity. There is a verse that says ‘let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God. He that doesn’t love is not born of God for God is love’ ‘They will know we are Christians by our love’ and I fear some haven’t shown it. For that I’m sorry.
I disagree. I but this is a false argument that can’t be proven, therefore it can be safely discarded. I say the manifest presence of God, or lack of it, is what makes Mars different from Earth. You can disagree or you can agree, but it doesn’t prove thing. There is nothing to compare it to, so why say it?
As for earthquakes etc, I’ll quote Ray Comfort: …we are like a child whose insatiable appetite for chocolate has caused his face to break out with ugly sores. He looks in the mirror and sees a sight that makes him depressed. But instead of giving up his beloved chocolate, he consoles himself by stuffing more into his mouth. Yet, the source of his pleasure is actually the cause of his suffering. The whole face of the earth is nothing but ugly sores of suffering. Everywhere we look we see unspeakable pain. But instead of believing God’s explanation and asking Him to forgive us and change our appetite, we run deeper into sin’s sweet embrace. There we find solace in its temporal pleasures, thus intensifying our pain, both in this life and in the life to come.
Well, if it is some mission to disprove my pernicious ignorance, then your initial complaint is invalid. You want to prove me wrong, but you don’t want me to post? Hmmm.
Now there was a question that I didn’t answer, but instead asked the person why he was asking me. If I fail to answer, there are a lot of accusations made about how I’m either weak or a coward. My personal belief is you can preach the Bible, you live your convictions. That said, a lot of the questions were about the Bible, and if someone really wants to know, I have no problem answering. For instance, the belief about whether children go to hell if they die is a good question. But there are times where I have to fall back on 2 Tim 2:
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. 24And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.
And finally, the quote about fruit is not in context, and actually is in reference to false prophets, but fair enough. What is fruit? And another thing about fruit, it’s not usually evident right away. If popularity is evidence of fruit, then Jesus isn’t a good example either (not that a lack of popularity is a sign of holiness either):
John 6:
60 Therefore** many** of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
When Vishnu returns at the end of this universe in the form of Kalki, I hope you are wearing asbestos underwear.
Okay, I’ve heard this about as many times as I can stand without answering this juvenile point: can you, Diogenes, provide any evidence that such exists? Or should we just believe absent proof of NON-existence?
Puh-leeze.
And Polycarp, I once again urge you to consider your actions in full. Your abusive over-reaction to a verbal shrug-of-the-shoulders type comment says much more than perhaps you’re aware.
Please, I’m asking you with the utmost seriousness, take to heart Pr. 6:19, James 4:11, 1John 2:9-11.
In the interest of fighting ignorance, and because I only learned of their existence last year, I present for your information the Carolina Bear Lodge. (The national organization has a webpage too, at triple-W-dot-bearmen-dot-com, but one graphic on the main page is, well, too graphic to comply with SDMB links policy.)
Svt4Him, I read through your last response to gobear, and I quite bluntly have to say that while I know it won’t work, it’s not from lack of trying on your part. I’ve thought several times of starting a Great Debates thread on conversion experiences – but those who have had them generally are unable to step back and maintain distance and objectivity needed to make clear what they’re like to those who have not experienced them. Likewise, there is nothing more obvious than the reality of God to the believer, and nothing less obvious to the non-believer. The same evidence that proves Him to us is obviously not proof to them, and with my background in the sciences and in rigorous logical thinking, I can see quite clearly their point. (I suspect lel and Mars Horizon, and Freyr and HJay for that matter, may have some peritnent comments.)
Well, why not? That’s what religion expects us to do.
There is just as much proof for the IPU as there is for God, i.e none.
Just because something can be hypothesized does not mean it acquires any default presumption of existence that must be disproven,
Can you tell me why the existence of God merits any more serious consideration than the existence of leprechauns?
If you want to assert that something exists then it is incumbent upon you to prove it. How many times as this point been made on SDMB? There are an infinite number of supernatural entities that I could postulate existence for. If I assert that the universe was created by a giant, sentient crab cake is it reasonable to reject that assertion out of hand or do I have to somehow disprove it? How about two giant, sentient crab cakes? Three? Do I have to disprove each assertion on to infinity?
That’s the point of the IPU analogy. It may annoy you but it is a logically sound rhetorical device. Anything you assert about God can be asserted about the IPU with equal plausibility.
In other words, folks-it’s nearly impossible to prove a negative.
Oh wait…Polycarp, you had me worried for a second-I was really afraid that there were people who actually had sex with honest to god BEARS. (Like Grizzlies, not bears as in gobear).
It’s not THAT far out-I mean what about that dolphin sex page?
Whew!
Diogenes, I am really pulling for you, believe it or not. You’re a hard case all the way around.
There is proof of God’s existence. It is not direct observation that can be demonstrated via the scientific method. However can one see a quark? No. One has to infer by indirect evidence their existence. Such is the same for God. Fifty years ago some of the best known scientists believed the universe always existed, the so-called Steady State Theory. Reluctantly, time and scientific advancement convinced them of their error. And this can be repeated throughout the ages. Perhaps a more cynical, no, just skeptical acceptance of scientific “facts” would be in order.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Svt4Him *
]This argument makes sense? If you are talking about probability through a representative sample, you will also have to include deviation and error.
And where do you get “98% of all knowledge that you don’t know”? I love how fundies create fake statistics.
That’s no answer. Appeal to the unknown is a worthless argument–you could use that to admit the existence of every deity ever imagined. Shall I challenge you to believe in Vishnu because he may exist? Sorry, bub, let’s see some evidence beyond blue sky hypothesizing.
Well, young earth creationsim, a flat earth, geocentrism, just for starters. I’m not ascribing these to you, but they are articles of the fundie faith.
Sorry, pal, but quoting Scripture is no answer. Fundies are, by and large, superstitious, credulous fools, as evidenced by the sales of the badly written Left Behind series, which the fundies think is a literally true roadmap of the future. Worse, they are scarily determined to hound gay people back into the closet.
[quote]
I disagree. I but this is a false argument that can’t be proven, therefore it can be safely discarded.
So you’re saying sin causes earthquakes? Hoo boy.
A typical fundie lie. I said that your pernicious ignorance must be fought, not that you shouldn’t post. You’re yet another Nine-Commandment Christian, willing to bear false witness to bolster your cause.
And quoting Scripture proves nothing except that you are incapable of critical thought.
Guin, “bears” is a term for older, hairy gay men who are often, but not necessarily heavy. Some, like me, are muscle bears.
Bullshit. Let’s see your inferential evidence, and please, show us something beyond “I get a yummy feeling in my tummy and that’s God.”
Science is not a collection of facts, but a process by which one tests hypotheses and weighs evidence for claims. It’s self-correcting, always subject to modification when better, more defined evidence is submitted. While the question of God’s existence by itself cannot be satisfactorily determined by the scientific method, the concomitant claims of the fundie faith, such as young earth creationism, can be disproven.
Yes, Guin, one can prove a negative. All one need do is to assume that a statement is true, and then see what the logical consequences of that statement are. If the consequences are shown to be false or nonexistent, the original proposition is negated. If God exists, then His followers must be filled with grace and wisdom from a clearly supernatural source. But we see that Christians are no wiser, kinder, or loving than the ordinary run of humanity, and in many cases the Christians behave a great deal worse. This casts a great deal of doubt on the existence of this God they claim makes them new creatures.