FreeThinkerNZ Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 BAA, I love the way you meticulously store and retrieve the posts of theists to remind them of later. In my imaginary world of a truly atheistic and secular earth government, you are the Director of Archives. You'd think by now they would know their posts were going to be brought back to bite them in the ass, but no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 ironhorse: You said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipVanWinkle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 ironhorse: You said that Mr. Shapiro seems to think that god must be brought to him in a test tube, which he knows cannot be done. That is not what he said. You make this error frequently, He's not asking for god or jesus to be brought to him. He's asking that the evidence in support of your faith be set forth. That's a bit different, don't you think? Quit trying to build a straw man which can be burned down is a useless enterprise. 1AccceptinmgAtheist1: In 2000 years no one on behalf of the Xtian myth has ever brought forth evidence to support the myth. So saying it hasn't been done in that time frame proves that the evidence can't be found. But that doesn't stop the apologists from claiming to its unsuspecting flock that it has loads o evidence without showing embarrassment. All kinds of bogus arguments have been brought forth, but no evidence. Millions of dollars have been spent to try to give the impression that the myth is true, but no evidence. Have you seen the luxuriant cathedrals, art and monuments in Europe trying to perpetuate the myth? Costs lots of money, but there is no evidence, The question as to whether the myth is true answers itself. Rip 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Due to the sheer definition of science it defines God out of existence science definition itself does not allow proof or evidence to occur outside of science. Anselm, followed by Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and others, defined God into existence. Heh heh. What you say above about what science allows and doesn't allow isn't accurate, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 7, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2015 I've always appreciated ficino's intellect. When he really gets stirred up, he's in a league of his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Thanks, Prof, this is high praise coming from you. I always profit from reading what you write, esp. about biology. Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 Sunday Dispatch.696 "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." ~ Charles Darwin "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." ~Stephen Jay Gould,Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University Ironhorse, this video presents salient examples of fossil confirmation of predictions made under the ToE: The video is a refutation of arguments made by David Berlinski, a prominent Intelligent Design guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Ironhorse, While Ficino tackles you about evolution, I'm going to take you back to Genesis 1:1. As more and more evidence comes in, the only viable cosmological explanations of reality are eternal ones. An eternal universe means that you shouldn't believe in a creator god - because there was no creation. . . . Or rather, you can go on believing in a creator god - but only if you deny the evidence or lie to yourself. . . . So then, care to surprise us and commit yourself to doing the honest thing... for a change? If an eternal universe is confirmed by science, will you accept that finding and renounce your faith in Jesus? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ironhorse, this one's for you! A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag): "So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence. Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist. JASON S. SHAPIRO Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014" Mr Shapiro, Must first accept what humanity has, for thousands of years, accepted as the full definition of evidence. He has simply parroted an Internet meme and pretended to have said something profound. Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 As more and more evidence comes in, the only viable cosmological explanations of reality are eternal ones. This is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 As more and more evidence comes in, the only viable cosmological explanations of reality are eternal ones. This is false. Unsupported claims can be summarily dismissed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ironhorse, this one's for you! A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag): "So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence. Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist. JASON S. SHAPIRO Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014" Mr Shapiro, Must first accept what humanity has, for thousands of years, accepted as the full definition of evidence. He has simply parroted an Internet meme and pretended to have said something profound. Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Why should what humanity has accepted for thousands of years be a full definition of evidence? Humanity accepted that the world was flat for thousand of years - but this is neither a full nor accurate definition of the true shape of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 As more and more evidence comes in, the only viable cosmological explanations of reality are eternal ones. This is false. Unsupported claims can be summarily dismissed. Ironically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ironhorse, this one's for you! A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag): "So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence. Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist. JASON S. SHAPIRO Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014" Mr Shapiro, Must first accept what humanity has, for thousands of years, accepted as the full definition of evidence. He has simply parroted an Internet meme and pretended to have said something profound. Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Why should what humanity has accepted for thousands of years be a full definition of evidence? Humanity accepted that the world was flat for thousand of years - but this is neither a full nor accurate definition of the true shape of the world. Because it's true, and every human being alive today and who has ever lived acts on it's truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 What you say above about what science allows and doesn't allow isn't accurate, btw. The very definition of Science requires the existence of truth outside science. Proof: The statement that all truth is empirical truth is not empirical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Said the internet lemming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ironhorse, this one's for you! A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag): "So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence. Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist. JASON S. SHAPIRO Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014" Mr Shapiro, Must first accept what humanity has, for thousands of years, accepted as the full definition of evidence. He has simply parroted an Internet meme and pretended to have said something profound. Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Why should what humanity has accepted for thousands of years be a full definition of evidence? Humanity accepted that the world was flat for thousand of years - but this is neither a full nor accurate definition of the true shape of the world. Because it's true, and every human being alive today and who has ever lived acts on it's truth. Your assertion that this is true is another unsupported claim that can summarily dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 So OC thinks Earth is flat? Well that would explain how Satan could take Jesus to a high mountain where they could look at all the kingdoms of the world. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ironhorse, this one's for you! A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag): "So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence. Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist. JASON S. SHAPIRO Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014" Mr Shapiro, Must first accept what humanity has, for thousands of years, accepted as the full definition of evidence. He has simply parroted an Internet meme and pretended to have said something profound. Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Why should what humanity has accepted for thousands of years be a full definition of evidence? Humanity accepted that the world was flat for thousand of years - but this is neither a full nor accurate definition of the true shape of the world. Because it's true, and every human being alive today and who has ever lived acts on it's truth. Your assertion that this is true is another unsupported claim that can summarily dismissed. It is supported by everyday human behavior of everyone alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ironhorse, this one's for you! A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag): "So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence. Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist. JASON S. SHAPIRO Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014" Mr Shapiro, Must first accept what humanity has, for thousands of years, accepted as the full definition of evidence. He has simply parroted an Internet meme and pretended to have said something profound. Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Why should what humanity has accepted for thousands of years be a full definition of evidence? Humanity accepted that the world was flat for thousand of years - but this is neither a full nor accurate definition of the true shape of the world. Because it's true, and every human being alive today and who has ever lived acts on it's truth. Your assertion that this is true is another unsupported claim that can summarily dismissed. It is supported by everyday human behavior of everyone alive. Another unsupported claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ironhorse, this one's for you! A letter in today's New York Times (liberal east coast rag): "So are all religions equally valid or equally invalid? I suppose that it depends on one’s perspective. But here’s the thing: In normal human discourse, the individual who proposes an assertion such as “God exists” has the burden of coming forward with evidence that can be evaluated, analyzed and challenged. But the community of believers has never met its burden; not in thousands of years have they come up with anything more than “This is my faith,” or “This is what is written,” or “This is what has been taught for generations.” None of that is evidence. Atheists have never had the burden of disproving a negative, and unless and until someone provides some evidence for the existence of God, I shall remain a happy and secure atheist. JASON S. SHAPIRO Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 25, 2014" Mr Shapiro, Must first accept what humanity has, for thousands of years, accepted as the full definition of evidence. He has simply parroted an Internet meme and pretended to have said something profound. Internet lemmings don't usually say much worth hearing. Why should what humanity has accepted for thousands of years be a full definition of evidence? Humanity accepted that the world was flat for thousand of years - but this is neither a full nor accurate definition of the true shape of the world. Because it's true, and every human being alive today and who has ever lived acts on it's truth. Your assertion that this is true is another unsupported claim that can summarily dismissed. It is supported by everyday human behavior of everyone alive. Another unsupported claim. Hint: What you believe to be true is not necessarily what is true, OC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Hint: What you believe to be true is not necessarily what is true, OC. Correct. @OrdinaryClay, if you keep making unsupported claim on top of unsupported claim the result is a house of cards. It will have no substance at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Let's ask Jesus to weigh in on this thread. Jesus? Any comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Let's ask Jesus to weigh in on this thread. Jesus? Any comments? Jesus is busy giving cancer to an infant. These tests of faith are not going to happen on their own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 OC: you're an asshole. Fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts