Religious

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

It was a hypothetical example. Damn, I can't believe you thought it was a real life case. It still does not make a difference though. You seem hell bent on peer review because you got a hard on for assholes with PHDs that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Everything does not have to be peer reviewed to be accepted. Only you seem to think so.

If it was real you would not believe it simply because a bunch of guys without PHDs were the ones that heard it. I don't get your obsession with peer review through PHDs. You act like they are the only ones with a brain to figure things out. Geez, get into the real world.

Who got you all hot and bothered all of a sudden? Chill out and play nice.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

You are letting your atheists views cloud your reason of thought and objectivity.

This is actually a pretty good line. But for other reasons.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

You really go by peer review to determine weather something happened or not? So, the story about the dog that traveled a 100 miles back home after getting lost on vacation is made up unless you test it. What do you guys do, kidnap dogs and drop them off a 100 miles from home to see if they can make it back. If they don't then you don't believe the story, interesting.

What about a guy who fell down a 100 foot cliff and lived. Do you and your buddies kidnap people and toss them off the same cliff to see if they live or not. Is that how you determine if results are reproducible?

Or do you not believe anything at all unless it can be duplicated. Strange way of thinking, if you ask me.

He probably thinks it's equally as strange to believe in God...you're both not right and you're both not wrong.

Just different sides of the same coin...but you keep on bashing him for no reason...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

But every atheist who knows they can get away with robbery and make a better life for themselves would do it. If you were out in the wilderness and there was not a soul around for 100s of miles and a hot woman was walking by that you wanted to have sex with, you would rape her if she did not agree to have sex with you. If not, then you either really believe in an after life or you don't believe the things you say.

Teenagers are idiots. All of them. That is when you came to believe in no God. Maybe you need to reevaluate your positions now that you are older, otherwise, you are no smarter now than when your were young.

You don't need to believe in God in order to do the right thing all the time.

And plenty of folks who believe in God DO HORRIBLE THINGS to other people.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Light

We all know everyone dies. And we all know Christ is not talking about the physical. I don't know what you are trying to get at but it seems to bother you that I believe in Christ.

You don't believe exactly like Boxcar does...so you don't count.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

He clearly states, as do the other two authors, that the Universe cannot be past eternal. At some point THIS Universe must have had a beginning. Nothing else matters, like an infinite space like Cauchy surface.

Do you know why nobody on here takes you seriously. Anybody who WANTS there to be no after life is so mentally unstable and should be immediately institutionalized. How on Earth can you root for every human being to be worm food and not want everyone to enjoy an eternal paradise. That is the most f***ed up thinking anyone can have. You really have serious issues. Can you please explain to me why you don't want to continue on after your physical body dies off. Do you hate people that much? If I am wrong and you are actually wanting an afterlife, then I apologize.

I guess you do want to be banned from this discussion after all.

You seem to be quite unstable mentally in this thread...is there anything I can do to help you? Besides kick you off of off-topic?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

So are you saying that Hawking has never been wrong. Interesting. Hawking I am sure has been wrong numerous times, if not, then he is the son of God. Which one is it?

A calculator is never wrong.

All hail Hewlett Packard!

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

Can't wait to hear Actors response to this. I am sure it will be that the guy did it for money or fame or that he is mentally messed up.

I know...nobody ever makes up stories when it comes to demons, UFOs or 9/11...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by zico20

Yes, but Actor is going to want it peer reviewed by his atheist buddies, not once but many times over.

Why are you such a dick to Actor in this thread?

Are you not confident in your own beliefs that you feel completely threatened by him and thus must turn to all this name calling and whatever other junk you're doing here?

Seriously...your position, from this outsider's perspective looking in, comes off as very WEAK when all you can do half the time is hurl insults at him that have nothing to do with the debate.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You don't believe exactly like Boxcar does...so you don't count.

The real issue is that this [supposed] believer in Jesus doesn't believe Him. It's no wonder that he wouldn't forthrightly tell me what his interpretation of Jn 11:26.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Originally Posted by Light

But our science is very limited in its present state. The modern automobile was only invented a little over 100 years ago. An advanced civilization may have invented the internal combustion automobile thousands of years ago. Because our primitive science around now cannot prove something whether based on faith or something else means nothing until science has evolved enough to disprove it.

You speak truth, except for the part requiring science to disprove something. SCIENCE CANNOT DISPROVE ANYTHING. Science can only prove things based on current evidence. It is the basic tenet of all skeptics that EXTRAORIDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. In the future, there may be real evidence that a being, or beings, beyond our 21st comprehension is directly responsible for the universe in which we reside. Interestingly, the more we learn about the power of the computer, the more we realize that certain traits such as Godly omnipotence mocked by atheists as impossible, are not so far fetched. We still have much to learn.

But now there is no proof. Belief requires faith in the unprovable teachings of the organized religion assigned at your birth (some choose to change beliefs). Believe or do not believe. It is your choice.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow...look at all those posts in a row here in this thread from me. WHO WOKE ME UP?

Zico did...I'm surprised Actor has all this patience. For an atheist, he sure has a calm and peaceful demeanor.

Both the atheist and the "believer" have it wrong, in my opinion. Neither of you know enough about anything to have a solid claim in either direction.

We human beings know relatively LITTLE about who we are, where we came from, or why we are here. To say one way or the other what is the truth or what isn't the truth seems absurd.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Wow...look at all those posts in a row here in this thread from me. WHO WOKE ME UP?

Zico did...I'm surprised Actor has all this patience. For an atheist, he sure has a calm and peaceful demeanor.

Both the atheist and the "believer" have it wrong, in my opinion. Neither of you know enough about anything to have a solid claim in either direction.

We human beings know relatively LITTLE about who we are, where we came from, or why we are here. To say one way or the other what is the truth or what isn't the truth seems absurd.

Hail to King Ignorance! Man has supposedly been on this planet for gazillions of years and he's no closer to knowing anything of real substance than we crawled out of the primordial slime.

I'm surprised that by now all mankind, by the very least, doesn't have an official day to celebrate skepticism and ignorance. Long live King Ignorance and her royal Highness Skepticism.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Both the atheist and the "believer" have it wrong, in my opinion. Neither of you know enough about anything to have a solid claim in either direction.

Right. If pressed I must admit to not knowing anything with absolute certainty. I'm really an agnostic. Even Dawkins admits to being an agnostic when it really comes down to it. But for some reason the word agnostic has fallen out of favor with both sides.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Right. If pressed I must admit to not knowing anything with absolute certainty. I'm really an agnostic. Even Dawkins admits to being an agnostic when it really comes down to it. But for some reason the word agnostic has fallen out of favor with both sides.

Not even if you pinched yourself really hard to see if you're alive?