Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
General Religious Discussion / Re: Non existent Yaweh proof
« Last post by bertatberts on Today at 06:57:20 AM »
Sorry that isn't an answer.

It is, actually. It may not be the answer you're looking for[1], but it's the answer you need[2]. So, go back, and read the sentence two sentences before that one.

Bert

One
 1. I assume that would be "I have no evidence".
 2. The evidence.
Sorry still not an answer! "Because of the laws of physics as we know them. Time slows down with gravity." But does it stop? to say it does is pure assumption, put up or shut up.

Note the bolded: No matter how slow it appears to be moving, it is still moving thus it is using time regardless of how little.
62
General Religious Discussion / Re: Non existent Yaweh proof
« Last post by One Above All on Today at 03:42:41 AM »
Sorry that isn't an answer.

It is, actually. It may not be the answer you're looking for[1], but it's the answer you need[2]. So, go back, and read the sentence two sentences before that one.

Bert

One
 1. I assume that would be "I have no evidence".
 2. The evidence.
63
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Princess Alice Experiment
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 03:42:24 AM »
YRM,

That's exactly hos I see it. Religion was probably just about odd noises in the forest and bad weather with a person in the group who offered to appease the supposed gods to improve the weather etc. Tribal leaders picked it up as a means of control and from there it ran amok, so to speak.

We can even see it in the bible when the people come into Israel from Babylon after the exile. The first thing they do is to sort out the temple rather than sort out food supplies, housing etc. The first principle is to get religion to control people. Muhammad had the same idea - wanting to be a leader, he came up with a religion that was made up from bits he had heard from Jews and Christians passing through Mecca and we all know where that went. before one of his early battles and with a much smaller force at his disposal he told his people that if they died in battle they would go straight to heaven. Just like today, the men fough tharder and did not fear death but welcomed it.

Yes, religion is a great tool for controlling a population!
64
General Religious Discussion / Re: Non existent Yaweh proof
« Last post by bertatberts on Today at 03:39:03 AM »
That is pure assumption, you could not possibly know, please provide evidence of it. Thank you.

Please go back two sentences before the one in the quote. Thank you.
Sorry that isn't an answer. (Go back two place and if you pass go collect £200.) Try again, and this time, "Please provide evidence of it."

Whether it's your opinion of what time is or whether it's Nam's, it is not why I posted (though I am in Nam's corner) it was because Skeptic had said "Time is not timeless, Nam. It had a beginning." he did not mean it in the way you do, now did he.
Do you agree that time must have been there for a creator! to create. Or are you of the opinion, that it started with a creator.

Also although Defiance was replying to Nam. I answered, thinking in terms of a creator, as this is a religious forum.

I cannot however see any logic in time having a beginning, it is nonsensical to think that way. I'm sorry if that angers you.
Any persons thinking that time had a beginning needs to rethink their position, sorry.

Bert
65
Debate Room / Re: Macroevolution commentary
« Last post by wheels5894 on Today at 03:30:20 AM »
Why would anyone be surprised? After all, given the weight of the observations that support evolution, it is highly unlikely that a non-biologist can ever say anything to challenge the theory. It would take some seriously unlikely finds in the rock strata to disprove evolution.

No, the creationist idea is not to engage in 'hard fact' but to keep asking annoying questions until the original question is forgotten. After all, a creationist, bible bashing Christian has a lot at stake - his whole belief system - so of course he doesn't want to face the reality that is the evidence for evolution and especially not have to deal in a scientific way with the evidence as he is convinced the bible is right and science must conform to the bible.

Don't expect any relies soon, I think.
66
Science / Re: Randomness and Determinism
« Last post by One Above All on Today at 03:16:10 AM »
you are contradicting yourself because you are not reading what I am writing.

Don't bother. He can't admit he's wrong about anything, even if he knows it.[1]
 1. This doesn't refer to just the quote above, but also to what supports the many-worlds hypothesis.
67
Science / Re: Randomness and Determinism
« Last post by Foxy Freedom on Today at 03:07:56 AM »
Unfortunately I don't make any quantum decisions so my single self is unanimous in rejecting it along with quantum dinosaurs and quantum Earths and quantum galaxies.
Do you honestly think your rejection of those things makes any difference whatsoever?  Frankly, a statement like this sounds quite incoherent.

Quote from: Foxy Freedom
The many worlds hypothesis disagrees with you.
Incorrect.  Equations in physics are used to model reality, but they are not themselves the reality.  This is pretty basic stuff, so what this really sounds like is you trying to use this as an excuse to justify your rejection of the many worlds interpretation.

To be honest, I don't care that much which interpretation you accept.  However, personal incredulity, which is what your rejection appears to boil down to based on your earlier statements, is never acceptable.

I reject the many worlds model because it is false, and you are also rejecting its assumptions but you are contradicting yourself because you are not reading what I am writing. In most quantum scenarios which have outcomes entirely in our universe, equations model reality as you agree they should. In the many worlds hypothesis it is the opposite way around. The equations are considered the ultimate reality and the visible outcome is just a consequence of the reality of the equations.
68
General Religious Discussion / Re: Don't make me go!
« Last post by Nam on Today at 02:40:28 AM »
Don't forget "Easter", originated as a pagan ritual.

-Nam
69
You say it's a legend. I say it was foreshadowing Jesus Christ.
You probably think everything in the Old Testament 'foreshadows' Jesus Christ.  Frankly, that's just an example of just how bad the writers of the New Testament were; they adapted and sometimes even rewrote things from Jewish myth, but it failed to actually convince the people who believed in those myths; the success of Christianity elsewhere was because the missionaries were smart enough to adapt pagan rituals into Christianity, like the sacred pole becoming a Christmas tree.

Quote from: skeptic54768
It appears we are certainly on opposite sides of the fence here.
This is nothing more than a false dichotomy.  I simply consider your belief to be wrong, including the part where you assume that there is a fence to be on opposite sides of.  If we discussed things outside of your Christian beliefs, you might well find that I agree with you on some of them.  That is why I reject your idea that there is a fence.  The fence is only in your mind, and the only thing it accomplishes is to lock you and your beliefs inside, and anyone who does not - or even might not - share your beliefs outside.
70
General Religious Discussion / Re: Don't make me go!
« Last post by jaimehlers on Today at 02:01:44 AM »
It never occurred to you guys that Satan and the angels rebelled because they wanted to be bigger than God? Satan had it all in paradise and threw it all away to choose evil. Just because they rebelled doesn't mean God was to blame. Why does it seem like atheists side with Satan, feeding the stereotype that atheists secretly worship the devil. (not saying it's true but think of how it looks from my viewpoint).
Is there some reason you failed to actually answer the question kcrady posed, and instead fixated on a very minor point he made in support of that question?  Because that looks like you're dodging.

Besides from which, you have no evidence that Lucifer and the angels who joined him in rebellion were actually evil.  You don't even know what this rebellion was actually about.  You just have a book written by the worshipers of the god they supposedly rebelled against, which of course makes them out to be evil.  But this is nothing more than the horns effect - perceived negative qualities seem to correlate just as perceived positive qualities seem to.  They had a reason to give their god as many positive qualities as they could, and they had a reason to give their god's supposed enemy as many negative qualities as they could.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10