Down here in Florida it's been raining for a month, record rain fall. Out in California they had fires for 2 months. Imagine if this happened 2k years ago, and someone wrote that down in a book which eventually became the Bible. They would have wrote that the Earth flooded for a month or burned of fire. When in reality, it's only a little part of the earth. Yet to those people, it was the entire planet.

See how whacked these stories can be when they are told 100 years after they happened by people probably drunk on wine.

Human evolution, gravity, global climate change, and second and third order chemical reactions are all falsifiable. Simple experiments that can be duplicated and reviewed can disprove any of these things, at any time. Religion, by it's own definitions cannot.

I scrolled through Amadeus and TPK occupying pages of what they think is argument, and it's amazing there are 2 people on earth that think this is a debate. There is evidence, or there isn't. Nobody in science has ventured into that ****show in 20 years.

If you really want to be an anti-theist like me, your homework is easy. Do not bother yourself with

God Is Not Great : How Religion Poisons Everything - Walmart.com - Walmart.com

or

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Paperback | Barnes

Don't buy either one.

Start with the Talmud. Read it cover to cover, without coaching or help.
Second step is the Holy Bible. Cover to cover, start with Genesis in the Old Testament, end with Revelation. Proceed from there to the Koran (they say you don't understand it completely unless you read it in Arabic. .whatever, just read the translated version, it won't take long)

There is no argument I can make (other than point to lack of evidence) that can eschew religion more than a person reading it for themselves. I've yet to meet the person that has read the bible with no coaching, got the the end, looked up, and said, "yeah, this is the ****."

Ah man, another you turn into a fart in the wind when you die guy...

Ok, we need to take a minute on this one, because by now the problem has become very obvious.

You keep paying lip service to evidence and scrutiny, but when I apply them to your beliefs, it's suddenly "victory mentality".


If your friend tells you your car is on fire, but you don't have a car, is it "victory mentality" to tell him he's wrong? Or should you grab the fire extinguisher and go look for your nonexistent burning car?

If someone builds an airplane with tiny little flimsy wings and asks you to fly it off a cliff, is it "victory mentality" to insist on a demonstration that the thing can fly? Or should you just be agreeable, have a little faith, and hop on?


When you make a statement about reality, it is either true or false, regardless of any mentalities or worldviews. Do you care if your statements are true?

the one good argument for religion is that its been a good civilizing agent throughout history. a means to control the ignorant masses who would otherwise exist as a bunch of disorganized savages. i dont think there was a single large ancient civilization that wasnt based on some belief system.

a worthy experiment would be to introduce religion to chimps to see if they can ascend to the next civilization level.

make it so jane goodall! :boogie: ... or was that the gorilla lady

These are interesting points I wish more people would discuss. It does not dawn on most people that human evolution is not testable using the scientific method. It's another great example of a supernatural truth requiring faith that people adhere to as fact without bearing a burden of proof.

There were many major points of religion that actually were entirely falsifiable during very large time windows, but nobody falsified them.

Because the claims went unfalsified for decades, the assumption of their credibility spread.

I believe I described the interaction as "a waste of time" and "throwing catpoop in a sandbox." And yet you accuse me of holding the interaction to some high standard of official argument.

It's no shock that you are a "master of argument" as everyone and their mother can do standing triple backflips in the privacy of their home when nobody is watching.

You are saying that nobody in science has argued about evidence in the past 20 years?

You are also suggesting that evidence is some hard-lined thing not subject to human bias or varying perspective, which is not always true.
In some cases, yes, there is agreed upon scientific creedance. However, in other cases one scientifically minded individual will say
"this is clear evidence" where another will not. Evidence can be dismissed when it is very strong, or emphasized when it is not.
The human mind often plays tricks on itself and obscures things that are plain to others, or makes things appear plain when they are not.

The over-simplification of truth that you present (there is either evidence or there is not), in my opinion, shows a lack of deep understanding
for the complexity of the reality that we live in, and the interpretation of reality that filters through the human mind.

Then invite me out for a beer why don't you?

The bible is actually far more interesting without some lame-ass coach painting their own version of it for you over the pages.

The first person to really teach me the bible was a devout Atheist and he spun the book just as hard as preachers do.

The bible really is best consumed the same way as fish is... raw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pRwXXsuPjw&

You are welcome in my poop sandbox too Vanster. I can assure you it is a waste of time.

That's a fair observation and I believe you have "good reason" to feel this way.

The reason I was pointing to a victory mentality is that you became fixated on the question you were asking me, and refused to let it go. Your mind drives you to push this question again and again, because you feel that if I refrain from answering it or fail to do so, it "proves" you are correct in some way, and therefore you "win" the discussion. Your strong determination to "win" is readily observable by your unwillingness to let the conversation flow in any other direction.

I am not convinced that "tell me what an experience with God would be like" is a sincere pursuit of evidence. If I'm wrong and it is evidence you seek, then read the above books that I linked. I provided those for you in case you were actually sincere, which I believe is a real possibility. As I said, read and study the evidence for yourself and tell me what you think. I'll even read the books along with you if you wish.

Also, I'm more than happy to publicly declare you the "victor" of this discussion at any time you please. This is not sarcastic, or passive aggressive, or a trap. I'm just offering in case it is something you desire.

I was more interested in causing your brain to flow in ways it is not used to. Seeing as I have asked the following question perhaps three times, you are equally unwilling to acquiesce:

If a highly intelligent being created all of the things around you that you see, what do you think a direct experience with that being would be like? I ask this out of sincere and honest curiosity. It would bring me joy to read your answer, and there is no trap behind it, but there is zero pressure to answer. If you do though, I will answer the same question in turn as you claim to have desired.

Also, you have refrained to answer whether or not you believe in the big bang, so I hope it is ok for me to go ahead and assume that you do. Please correct me if I'm wrong as I have no desire to offend.

That entirely depends:

Non-victory mentality answer:
"Naw dude, I don't even have a car so no worries..."

Victory mentality answer:
"Haha mother****er, you don't realize that you have already lost the battle and ultimately surrendered to me as I do not even have a car and the burden of proof rests upon you to show otherwise. GG thanks for playing 100th guy that has failed to even one-up me a single time."

I will ask you an equally relevant question:

"How do you robble dobble a flim flam?"

Why ask questions you know the answer to?

I believe it is because you are flamboyantly suggesting that I believe it is a good idea to believe in things without demonstration or evidence when I certainly do not.

You also demonstrate that you do not know what faith is. Most people that know little about religion never seem to know what faith really is, and because of that, erroneously dismiss it as "ignorantly blindly believing in things without evidence."

The topic of evidence lies elsewhere, the fine tuning of the universe, and a various other topics that are quite deep and take a lot of time to tread upon. There are lengthy books written on these various singular topics that you can freely indulge in.

Repeatedly asking a stranger to provide a detailed example of what an interaction with a divine source might be like might not be as productive to your scientific and logic based mind as simply reading the books I linked above written by qualified cosmologists and such, especially when you are waiting frothing at the mouth to dismiss any possible thing uttered towards you before it even crosses the other person's lips. However, if you answer your own question first, I will answer it as well to the best of my ability so that you can dismiss my answer as nonsensical drivel and feel that you have "defeated me" and added the "101st notch to your power belt of GG victory."

Again, if you are curious towards the actual evidence pointing towards God's existence as you suggest, I have already linked you two great books on Amazon that you can purchase.

Yes, I care if my statements are true.

Do you believe in absolute truth?

https://media0.giphy.com/media/1004Eqp3k9U6KQ/giphy.gif

Have I described in this thread the possibility that Mary (even if she did exist) was inseminated by an Alien?

I went to a religious school.

The most interesting story in the new testament is around Paul. Basically... Some rebel called Jesus was causing a fuss, so a Jew boss said "Paul, go investigate what these ****ers are up to." So Paul as an investigator headed to where this rebel was causing problems. On the way a blackhawk helicopter appeared in the sky and told Paul to pull he's head in. Paul got to town and was really messed up. Eventually Paul investigated and wrote back to his Jew boss. "This ****er is the real deal boss. There is incredible **** happening." Eventually Paul became one of the biggest advocates of Jesus stuff... or so they say.

I think it's an interesting story, however I very skeptical regarding religion.

Was the angel Gabriel an alien visitation?

https://childrenschurch.files.wordpr...se_to_mary.jpg

Did Mary get an anal probe?

I'm pretty sure of one thing. Jesus, if he even existed, would not have had blonde hair blue eyes and western european features.

https://static.attn.com/sites/defaul...3TCAAIQdf6.jpg

Also, the celibacy thing for clergy is stupid.

I'm pretty sure they're mostly fictional stories broh

Maybe Mary got porked by a wandering Scandinavian..never thought of that did you. Mother ****er would have looked like an alien back then.

By the way religion is not a black and white, truth, false deal. For the most part (such as Christianity) religion has morphed, converged, etc based on control of humans. Constantine the Great who moved Rome's capital to Constantinople was a great example of blending Paganism and Christianity. They also had meetings with all the "Christian leaders" to debate what was fact or not.

There is also parts of the bible which actually derived from other philosophies and religions. "Immaculate conception" was originally used as the conception of Buddha.

Anyway carry on these are always fun discussions.

Right on queue, this video comes along with 3 stories of how America was discovered. Which one is correct? The problem is, people go to Church and learn about Jerusalem and don't hear about these stories. This is what would be in the USA Bible. Most history books give it to Columbus, but there were others that came to America first, didn't leave anything behind. This video would be the beginning of the USA Bible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upWR_QT60-Q

this is categorically false

Now this is a good pivot.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

Well i mean...you can prove human evolution with a pen and paper and blood type tests. You could also falsify it this way. Im not sure what the issue is.

Evolution is a fact. Human evolution is no different.

Sorry to disappoint, but you have said nothing so far that I haven't already heard, and heard refuted, dozens of times.


So you say.

Do you recognize that science, by definition, is the collection of tools and methods that we have found to be reliable for arriving at true statements about reality?

Dude, you could have let that play out a bit before just ending it

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

I have a favourite pet theory about Jesus.

What gets me about the whole Jesus story is this: even the bible says that there were all sorts of prophets and supposed messiahs running around at the time. So then what made Jesus so special that he got a religion formed around him when none of those other guys did?

Ostensibly, it could have just been a case of superior marketing via Paul. But I think there was actually something different about Jesus.


Imagine this scenario: king Herod has an affair with some random peasant woman (as you do when you're king). She's called Mary, and Herod accidentally knocks her up.

Now imagine you're Mary: carrying the son of the king is a pretty good bargaining position to be in, but you can't well publicly claim that this is the case, because that would be a) admitting you cheated on your husband and b) accusing the king of adultery, both of which will get you stoned to death quicker than you can say Jehovah. But you can't say the baby is your husband's either, because this all happened before the two of you boned. So who the ****'s baby is it?

The only way out is the ultimate copout: claim that god did it. Then you and your husband can cash in on that sweet inheritance from the king later. So now you have this mysteriously pregnant woman who claims she's carrying god's child. That kinda gossip gets around, and it's only a matter of time before it gets back to Herod's ear.

Now, we have no historical evidence that Herod actually ordered all the babies in a village to be killed. However, we do know that in his later years, he was super paranoid about people trying to usurp him, and he did have lots of people, including family members, executed. So it's entirely within his character to, say, order that one particular baby that he secretly knows is his bastard son to be killed. And from there, the story can grow in the telling.

- "Omg, did you hear? The king wanted to kill a baby!"
- "Omg, did you hear? The king is killing babies in yonder village now!"
- "Omg, did you hear? The king ordered all the babies in yonder village to be killed!"

Then of course when Jesus grows up, he goes around claiming he's king of the jews, because, well, he's technically the heir to the throne. And him being the weird special "child of god" sets him apart from all the randos with zero mysterious origin story.

It's the perfect soap opera storyline.

Well, you are right about the blonde hair. Jesus was a ginger.

And I also agree with Mary being impregnated by an extraterrestrial.

Goths and a few others migrated to Eastern Europe to the Black Sea as well met the Romans around 100 BC. Still could have been a hulking Viking but I like Aliens better also.

But how bad ass would that be if Jesus was actually of Viking decent

Do we have a US bible yet?

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

yes..Trump's pic is superimposed on every page

Scientific method - Wikipedia

"It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed"

So, please tell us what it was like watching something evolve.

Can you provide video of something evolving so we can all see it?

Evolution cannot be observed. Therefore it is not subject to the scientific method.

You can observe "evidence" of evolution in the form of fossils, but you cannot observe evolution.

No, my statement was not false.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab | New Scientist

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

yes im aware. and the theory of evolution is a proven fact.
we can literally do this every single day. I just provided a simple example.
also you seem to be very hung up on some sort of "live time lapse video" of sorts.
im going to leave this quote as is an an example that you have no idea what evolution is.
i'll also leave this quote as is an example that you have no idea what evolution, or science or observation is.
thats what observing evolution is. again i feel that you don't have an understanding of what evolution means. you also seem to leave out genetics. which again, was discovered long after the theory of evolution.

evolution is the change of allele frequency within a population over time. a simple understanding of (a)sexual reproduction as supported by genetics is ironclad proof.

you observe evolution everytime something reproduces. traits are inherited. mutations happen. traits are naturally selected (or not) and passed on. are you asking for a video or dns/rna replication and how mutation works?

we see species selected (and/or not selected) all the time.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Wow, you mean you've heard many different people tell you that you have a victory mentality dozens of times?

Well that lines up.

No, I can't google the definition of the word "science," because I don't have internet.


Anyway, all of the tools and methods that science have available all strongly point to the existence of an intelligent creator. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

You have acquiesced to a long list of things during our discussion.

1) You believe in supernatural events that require faith.

2) You hold any strong evidence conflicting with your worldview to a completely different standard.

3) You have a victory based mentality.

4) You have little to no desire to investigate any scientific evidence that might possibly conflict with your worldview.

5) You are religious in your beliefs.

Nice, TPK is correct and you are way off base with your analogy on the Bible Amadeus. You might try understanding what you've read the next time you skim it instead of making up weird ****. It discredits you.

The most logical story I have read about was when Jesus was 12 years old or so, the 3 wise men from the East returned and they took him back to India and Tibet and taught him the ways of the Buddha. He returned around 28 - 29 years old (the lost years of Jesus) and was talking to a bunch of Greeks and Jews about a completely unique way of looking at life, and how to properly live your life. He was so successful because of his understanding of the local religion prior to becoming a Buddhist, so it was easy to mix up the knowledge he learned in the East with the local traditions.

Free thinkers cause issues for the local authorities and their customs and traditions. Removing the guy who got a LOT of people to look at life differently is greatly beneficial to the powers that be.

Read more here:
Shortly after Jesus died, the Christian religion appears to be awesome, and very Zen like. Christian Gnosticism is amazing to read about as well as the various different sects of Christianity that thrived until about the year 200. Around that time some of the Romans and Greeks wanted to use it to combine the teachings into 1 mass religion and they began to remove the more Zen styled and Gnostic groups from what they felt was the real teachings.

1 guy - probably the guy who started it all - was named Irenaeus. (It's been a while since I've read this so...) Irenaeus was basically responsible for the entire HERITIC thing for Christianity which, as we all know, was just fantastic for all the people who believed in something different.

Then why did you call it a "theory?"

https://media0.giphy.com/media/fKk2I...&rid=giphy.gif

Sorry, I'm in a rush, lots of stuff going on. Could you provide a link to what you are talking about so that I can learn?

I respect your accusation against me. I'm curious to know where it comes from. Please teach me more so I can learn more about your line of thinking.

If I'm wrong, then this is a wonderful opportunity for me to learn and grow.

However, it seems to me that what you are referring to as "observation" is actually "deduction through evidence".

For example, I would never say "I just saw Pagy five minutes ago" after looking at your driver's license.

Yes, fossils can be used as evidence towards the theory of evolution, but looking at a fossil is not "observing evolution."

You are free to leave my own words up for all to see as evidence of my own ignorance and stupidity as freely as you like.

I respect your thinking and your willingness to engage with me and appreciate anything I may learn from talking with you.

Please go into more detail about why you feel I do not know what evolution is.

It seems like a remarkably quick assumption based on very little interaction with me, but I'm very curious and would appreciate to know more.

Evolution is also a creation of new information. In this case, new attributes in DNA that did not exist before. Can you explain and describe to me where this new information is coming from?

Please explain to me how the new code in the DNA gifting the animal with new traits and abilities came to existence, and if so, where from?

What you are describing is simply "adaptation" which is a very different concept, one that I adhere to completely. Adaptation is simply a manipulation or change in the pre-existing DNA code, and in many times, it's actually a subtraction, such as cave fish losing their eyes sight in order to adapt to deep and dark environments.


Again, what you are describing is "Adaptation".

Evolution, in contrast, dictates that over time, one animal can indeed become another.

Tell me, when have you ever observed an animal of one kind becoming another?

If so, can you show me a video of it happening?

Or does it happen over millions of years? Meaning it cannot be observed by the human eye?

Evolution would dictate that one animal can change into another type of animal. The only proof we have of that is simply "deduction from evidence" and not observable to the human eye, nor is it subject to the scientific method.

If I am in error, feel free to correct me and leave quotes of my ignorance for all to see in order to belittle me as much as possible. I'm cool with it, though I will not retaliate in similar fashion.

So if you care about making true statements, and you recognize that science is how we arrive at true statements, then how come you keep making statements that disagree with the current scientific consensus? How did you arrive at those statements?

No, but I came up with the idea, even though I won't get credit. It would be that video of the first people who made it to America, then all the common sense stuff I talk about here on TW.

Like I said, others have started churches and written books, but they are whacked. No one has come out and said let's make a serious US Bible that people can read instead of the make believe stuff from Jerusalem or a ruthless killer (pedo) named Mohamed. It's not worth reading those stories any more because it all happened 2k years ago. Jesus hasn't come back, never will.

We can believe in an all mighty god. But it would be better to study the history of the USA and talk about doing good.

The Churches could still teach the make believe stuff from 2k years ago, but include the new book of the USA. But they haven't done this and their followers are dropping.

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldw...cientists.html

It varies widely based on geographic location, but the likely non-existence of God is not consensus among scientists.

No, I do not recognize that science is how we arrive at true statements. I recognize that it is one of many methods that we use to ascertain true statements, perhaps even the best one.

If there is a specific statement you would like me to expound on, please reference me and I will be glad to.

The general answer to your question will be: By using logic, science, evidence, observation, and concluding what makes the most sense thereupon.

In the case of evolution, it is simply because it can't be proven scientifically, requires faith, and is actually relatively weak as a theory, a stance that many Atheistic and credible scientists adhere to.

BTW, you should read about Darwin, dude was mentally ill. You are being guided by someone that was very troubled indeed.

I just posted evidence

Bacteria makes sense because of their rapid rate of multiplication since evolution takes a long ass time.

Sent from my SM-N976U using Tapatalk

observe this evolution, it's neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMBzcWRXg3U

Then what was this?

Because it sounds like you agree with that definition I gave by way of smarmy sarcasm. So which is it?

Cutting that quote in half is like cutting out "I hate white people" from the sentence "I hate white people that torture babies".

Why are you being blatantly sketchy?

The word "this" is as ambiguous as it gets, so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Are you trying to assert that I don't believe in absolute truth?

Ummmm, everyone agrees with the definition of science?

Are there people that do not?

Why are you posting the definition of science?

It's kind of awkward, hence you got sarcasm...

It would be equally awkward if I similarly said:

"A gorilla is a large primate that has a lot of muscle" wouldn't you agree Amadeus? Or do you not?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lXdyD2Yzls

I feel like you aren't even saying anything at this point.

What is the point that you are trying to make?

Be clear...

You apparently don't. Let's try again.

Science is, by definition, the totality of tools and methods that we have found through experience to date to be reliable for arriving at true statements about our shared reality.

That means that whatever proves to be reliable, it gets included in science. Anything that proves unreliable, it gets excluded.

Do you agree with that definition of science?