Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[cybrsage]

Which part is dishonest? Is it not logically possible for you to be magically deceived by a supernatural being?

Bawitdaba-da bang-da-bang-diggy-diggy-diggy
Said the boogie-said up jump the boogie
Bawitdaba-da bang-da-dang-diggy-diggy-diggy
Said the boogie-said up drop the boogie

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Bawitdaba-da bang-da-bang-diggy-diggy-diggy
Said the boogie-said up jump the boogie
Bawitdaba-da bang-da-dang-diggy-diggy-diggy
Said the boogie-said up drop the boogie

Your refusal to answer only validates my suggestion that you realize your own hypocrisy.

Oh, and you seemed to overlook these:

A statement of belief requires supporting evidence or else it is a faith based belief. This is a known thing, and is part of the very definition of the word faith.

It is not true that you believe without any evidence whatsoever that you are not being supernaturally tricked into believing a falsehood?

You also claim he showed support

Please cite this claim that you have attributed to me, or admit it is in fact you (as usual) that is dishonest.

...but refuse to show it

Faith-based belief.

...then say this support is magically hidden from me but you can see it.

Please quote me where I have made this claim.

 

[cybrsage]

Your refusal to answer only validates my suggestion that you realize your own hypocrisy.

I did answer, maybe your same magical forces are making you not understand it. Are you saying such a thing is not logically possible?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I did answer, maybe your same magical forces are making you not understand it.

I will let the self-evident falsity of this claim of yours testify to the quality of your character (or lack thereof, in this instance) -- not that anyone else had any doubts about your distinct lack of candor.

Please note that I never claimed anything you said was false -- merely that your claims were faith-based.

Are you saying such a thing is not logically possible?

Of course it's logically possible.

These remain to be addressed:

A statement of belief requires supporting evidence or else it is a faith based belief. This is a known thing, and is part of the very definition of the word faith.

It is not true that you believe without any evidence whatsoever that you are not being supernaturally tricked into believing a falsehood?

You also claim he showed support

Please cite this claim that you have attributed to me, or admit it is in fact you (as usual) that is dishonest.

...but refuse to show it

Faith-based belief.

...then say this support is magically hidden from me but you can see it.

Please quote me where I have made this claim.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You are trying...

You see, first three words and I already know where you are going.

You still do not get it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is like deja vu all over again.

 

[Ninjahedge]

BTW, the one thing I always get a kick out of is simple.

If God was Omnipotent... couldn't "he" have made all the rules about how the universe operated anyway?

Would it be so outrageous to think that he could make a system that evolved on its own to fit a world that "he" created using means and methods he decided on (big bang, etc)?

The one reason the Catholic Church accepted the Big Bang is because it is still something that is so fantastical and unknown, they know they can easily attribute it back to the One and Only.

This whole thread is pointless.

 

[Ninjahedge]

This is like deja vu all over again.

You forgot your "..."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is like deja vu all over again.

Didn't you just say that? :hmm:

 

[Ninjahedge]

Tonight on "It's the Mind".....


/MPFC reference

 

[IronWing]

Did you do it to eat their god seeds?

No, I created them just to take pleasure from killing them. Being omnipotent lends itself to pointless cruelty.

"Prurient pleasure is the purest of pleasures."

 

[Nemesis 1]

The problem with the debate as outlined by the op is the other option. The human geno has 2 fused off genes . This cann't occur in nature . There is a third option that we were created by alien vistors, Here is a video . I not showing this for debate its for the facts it contains and can be cross checked the thing I find of interest is the 50 year, times up 50 years has past . Was this story really presented to the public 50 years ago. You do the research I already know and its does no good to show my work . If ya care you will check the facts,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlb0SzSwvEI

 

[Lonbjerg]

What drugs are you on?

Scaring at child with that it will burn forever, due to the "mercy" of an all powerfull imaginary elf *chough*, if it not stay a loyal pet is abuse.

Especially when it told in by (not exclusive, a lot of forces influences the cognetive brainwash) the cildren parents.
Imagine if someone belived, fully, his whole life that the bunny rabbit was real...dead real.
And if he not repelled or saw them a "lessers" that tried to tell him otherwise that it would eat him...for real.

You wouldn't call that abuse?

 

[Matt1970]

Why does this thread keep going...and going....... There is soo much unexplained stuff in our world that I don't see why either side would use any of it to try and prove their case.

 

[cybrsage]

I will let the self-evident falsity of this claim of yours...

It is a repeat of your own claim. Or did the magic make you not see that too?

 

[cybrsage]

Scaring at child with that it will burn forever, due to the "mercy" of an all powerfull imaginary elf *chough*, if it not stay a loyal pet is abuse.

Especially when it told in by (not exclusive, a lot of forces influences the cognetive brainwash) the cildren parents.
Imagine if someone belived, fully, his whole life that the bunny rabbit was real...dead real.
And if he not repelled or saw them a "lessers" that tried to tell him otherwise that it would eat him...for real.

You wouldn't call that abuse?

What does this have to do with Catholicism?

Wait, you are pretending Catholics made up God! Good one!

 

[cybrsage]

I know, and that was my point.

We agree.

Just because you don't personally like the evidence doesn't mean it wasn't evidence. (I'm not saying that everything offered as evidence counts, but not liking it isn't a reason to discount it.)

What evidence? I am still asking for it, but no one seems to be able to show it. He failed to show any support for his claim about there being a time before man believed in a god. No evidence to support the claim, which means it is not possible for me to dislike his evidence...there is nothing to like or dislike.

If simply saying there is a time in human history when man did not believe in a god is evidence, then saying there is no time in human history when man did not believe in god is also evidence. Both have equal support. Obviously, both cannot be true, but without any support for either statement we cannot know which is true and which is not true. To accept one of these statements as true without any supporting evidence is to hold a faith based belief.

 

[Lonbjerg]

What does this have to do with Catholicism?

Wait, you are pretending Catholics made up God! Good one!

Not sure if seious...Mitrahs...you know.
Real history.

 

[cybrsage]

Not sure if seious...Mitrahs...you know.
Real history.

Catholicism has its roots in Judaism. Catholics may have altered the Messianic sect of Judaism so much that it turned into a completely new religion, but the God of the Catholics is the same God of the Jews...which is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of course, the Catholics then went ballistic and started slaughtering Jews at every opportunity...causing the rift we still see today.

But no, Catholics did not invent the God the Jews worshipped thousands of years before the Catholic Church came into existance.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

cybrsage, I don't even know what you're arguing any more. Honestly.

At this point, I'll make a suggestion for you if you're still against the reality of evolution: read "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne.

I think that Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show On Earth" is the better book for its superior explanation of the supporting evidence for evolution, but since you can't stand Dawkins then Coyne's book will be fine. Read that and learn about this topic. Ok?

 

[Onceler]

Scaring at child with that it will burn forever, due to the "mercy" of an all powerfull imaginary elf *chough*, if it not stay a loyal pet is abuse.

Especially when it told in by (not exclusive, a lot of forces influences the cognetive brainwash) the cildren parents.
Imagine if someone belived, fully, his whole life that the bunny rabbit was real...dead real.
And if he not repelled or saw them a "lessers" that tried to tell him otherwise that it would eat him...for real.

You wouldn't call that abuse?

"If you wouldn't eat that cow it would eat you and your whole family" (Troy McClure)
BTW I have no problem with evolution, I just believe that there is a god driving it to a purpose.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Catholicism has its roots in Judaism. Catholics may have altered the Messianic sect of Judaism so much that it turned into a completely new religion, but the God of the Catholics is the same God of the Jews...which is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of course, the Catholics then went ballistic and started slaughtering Jews at every opportunity...causing the rift we still see today.

But no, Catholics did not invent the God the Jews worshipped thousands of years before the Catholic Church came into existance.

Did you leave out that other religion on purpose or oversight?
Hell of an oversight considering Abraham fathered both nations.

It is because of this fact , Jews altered their religion and made the woman the gene carrier. Which we all know isn't the complete truth . But Abraham had 2 sons . One by Sarah and the other by her egyptian hand maiden and He was the eldest he RIGHTLY deserved Abrahams blessing as we now know the reason given by jews is lie . but from liars thats nothing new. So its all BS,

 

[Lonbjerg]

Catholicism has its roots in Judaism. Catholics may have altered the Messianic sect of Judaism so much that it turned into a completely new religion, but the God of the Catholics is the same God of the Jews...which is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of course, the Catholics then went ballistic and started slaughtering Jews at every opportunity...causing the rift we still see today.

But no, Catholics did not invent the God the Jews worshipped thousands of years before the Catholic Church came into existance.

Look closly at easter...
Real close...
Real history.

 

[Paul98]

"If you wouldn't eat that cow it would eat you and your whole family" (Troy McClure)
BTW I have no problem with evolution, I just believe that there is a god driving it to a purpose.

What do you mean by driving it to a purpose? Like are you saying that certain species will survive even if they aren't suited to their environment? Or that god is the cause of mutations that allow certain species to survive or die off? or...

 

[IronWing]

What do you mean by driving it to a purpose? Like are you saying that certain species will survive even if they aren't suited to their environment? Or that god is the cause of mutations that allow certain species to survive or die off? or...

I think he means that the outcomes of evolution are just a little to perfect to be entirely chance. The genus Suidae evolved at just right the place in geologic time relative human evolution to provide delicious bacon. A clear example of directed evolution at the hand of a loving god. Of course, that same god told us not to eat bacon.