RE: Paris under attack (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

CreativeDominant -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 10:15:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

As much as I'd like to believe this, I think humans have a deep seated need to differentiate oneself from another. Humans will always find a reason to declare one group as superior and certain fringe elements will always advocate for the elimination of the "inferior" group.


Then why not eliminate one of those reasons? The stupidest reason of all . . . the belief that an invisible man living in the sky who spends all his time obsessing over what we do with our genitalia and issuing commands over what to do about it.

Just one problem, Marc; until you can prove to believers....definitively...that there is no God, you cannot eliminate that reason. How about some scientific cites of the proof of God's invalidity? Not just arguments. Proof.


Shouldn't you be proving definitively there is a god? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Actually...no. I don't have to prove there is one to non-believers. They are not the ones committing horrendous deeds in the name of God or Allah. Whatever reasons various non-believing factions have for committing horrendous crimes, it isn't due to their belief that God wills it so trying to convince them to give up their endeavors because God exists and would not want that would be akin to non-believers trying to convince religion fanatics...let alone reasonable believers...that God/Allah does not.



ifmaz -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 11:11:29 AM)

FR

Video of one of the attacker's AK47's jamming. (Yes, I know: DailyMail...)



Kirata -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 11:57:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

The only actual fact that remains is that your statement is simply an unsupported assertion.

The burden is on you to prove that it's true.

How? Show me how. Prove to me that there is no Santa Claus and I will then use that exact same method to prove to you that there is no god.

"How?" is the question, isn't it. You can't. Thanks for playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Until then, your assertion of a positive (god exists) requires evidence.

Now you're just making shit up. I haven't made any such assertion.

K.




Marc2b -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 12:34:03 PM)

quote:

How?" is the question, isn't it. You can't. Thanks for playing.


BINGO! YOU CAN'T! That is the whole point! Since it is impossible to disprove the existence of god (just as it impossible to disprove the existence of anything, including Santa Claus) it is therefore not incumbent upon me to do so. I have no burden of proof on this issue.

The burden of proof is solely upon those who assert the existence of god because it is possible to prove the existence of things that actually exist. Sometimes it is easy (I could prove the existence of chicken eggs by providing specimens), sometimes it is not (proving the existence of atoms was more problematic, but atoms actually exist and they were eventually proven to exist).

Therefore it remains possible that evidence for the existence of god may someday be found. That has not happened yet and until it does, god remains unproven.

quote:

Now you're just making shit up. I haven't made any such assertion.


Oh, don't go all DaddySatyr on me just because you may not have made such an assertion on this particular thread (I'm not huffed enough about it to go looking). You know perfectly well what we are talking about and pretending otherwise doesn't change the facts. There are those who assert the existence of god. A percentage of those demand proof of the non-existence of god. Such people either lack the intelligence to understand and/or the intellectual honesty to care that their demand is neither rational nor excuses them from having the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of god.






Kirata -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 1:34:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

How?" is the question, isn't it. You can't. Thanks for playing.

BINGO! YOU CAN'T! That is the whole point! Since it is impossible to disprove the existence of god (just as it impossible to disprove the existence of anything, including Santa Claus) it is therefore not incumbent upon me to do so. I have no burden of proof on this issue.

Bingo my ass. We were talking about Santa Claus. Stop trying to promote your shit-for-brains analogy between Santa and God. Also, I didn't say that it was impossible to disprove Santa Claus. I just said that YOU couldn't, because you are perversely and irrationally concretizing a symbolic character in folklore who represents the spirit of giving. A rational disproof would consist in demonstrating that human nature is entirely lacking in a spirit of giving.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Now you're just making shit up. I haven't made any such assertion.

Oh, don't go all DaddySatyr on me just because you may not have made such an assertion on this particular thread

Find a single post where I positively asserted the existence of God, or stop making shit up.

K.



PeonForHer -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 1:50:25 PM)

quote:


And all of you offering loving support to Islam are in denial about the origin of the ideology.


Who has said this? Where has he/she said it? Where *does* this giant of strawmen come from that so many people here love Islam?



MariaB -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 2:44:44 PM)

@Greta
Nobody here has condoned or excused ISIS. Nobody here is sympathising with terrorism but if you have an ounce of humanity in your body and I suspect you don't, you would educate yourself enough about Islam to have a balanced conversation about them. Your naivety is astounding and your prejudices sickening. You are forever telling us how we are getting it wrong whilst your country is getting it right but the only evidence you appear to have about our state of affairs is the sort of shit you'd read in far right newspaper articles.

Try debating with an open mind occasionally instead of just standing on that cardboard pulpit of yours and preaching your ideals to us all.



ifmaz -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 2:52:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


And all of you offering loving support to Islam are in denial about the origin of the ideology.


Who has said this? Where has he/she said it? Where *does* this giant of strawmen come from that so many people here love Islam?


In case you haven't noticed she's slight insane and believes anyone who is remotely accepting of the Muslim faith to be either a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.



Politesub53 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 4:33:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

In my personal experience, although there seem to be alot honour killing with Hindu communities in the UK. I don't know why.
...


I thought you had promised to stop posting.



I wish she would promise to stop thinking.



Lucylastic -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 4:36:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


And all of you offering loving support to Islam are in denial about the origin of the ideology.


Who has said this? Where has he/she said it? Where *does* this giant of strawmen come from that so many people here love Islam?

typical right wing bullshit.



Politesub53 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 4:39:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

And once again proving how arrogant you can be, polite(?)sub...thinking that because Marc...and apparently you...believe it to be so, it is so.



The arrogance is all yours, fuckwit. If you are in any doubt trawl through your own posts.



Politesub53 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 4:41:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

In your ranting you missed the point...as usual...It is no longer just Sunni versus Shia as the deaths in France should show you if you would just control your outbursts...Allen I try to talk with you and exchange ideas in a civil manner but your disordered mind makes that impossible...I hope you can learn to deal with your disability. Goodbye

Butch


And realising he is talking bullshit, he flounced out of the room, promising goodbye until the next time he wants a rant.



Politesub53 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 4:46:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

FR

Video of one of the attacker's AK47's jamming. (Yes, I know: DailyMail...)



I saw this on the new last night, dont ask me which chanel. It was very clear that one lady was very very lucky indeed.



lovmuffin -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 4:59:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

FR

Video of one of the attacker's AK47's jamming. (Yes, I know: DailyMail...)



An AK47 jammed ?? Someone tell Marc we have positive proof of the existence of God [8D]



CreativeDominant -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 5:22:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

And once again proving how arrogant you can be, polite(?)sub...thinking that because Marc...and apparently you...believe it to be so, it is so.



The arrogance is all yours, fuckwit. If you are in any doubt trawl through your own posts.

Actually, if I want ignorance with arrogance, I'll read your posts.



Marc2b -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 5:40:36 PM)

Let's deal with this nonsense first:

quote:

Now you're just making shit up. I haven't made any such assertion.


I don't care if you've ever made any such assertion. It is not relevant to this issue at hand. Your indignity comes across as feigned and in the service of a diversion.

Now, as for this nonsense:

quote:

Bingo my ass. We were talking about Santa Claus. Stop trying to promote your shit-for-brains analogy between Santa and God. Also, I didn't say that it was impossible to disprove Santa Claus. I just said that YOU couldn't, because you are perversely and irrationally concretizing a symbolic character in folklore who represents the spirit of giving. A rational disproof would consist in demonstrating that human nature is entirely lacking in a spirit of giving.


Let's go back to the beginning:

In Post 497 CreativeDominant asked for "scientific cites of the proof of God's invalidity? Not just arguments. Proof." What she failed to realize when she wrote that is that since it is impossible for me (or anyone) to disprove the existence of god I am therefore not obligated to even try. The burden of proof automatically shifts to the person who is asserting the positive (such as the existence of god).

But it is the analogy to Santa Claus that seems to have your panties in a twist. You opened up this side debate by calling the Santa analogy "shit-for-brains" and now you are repeating it. Why you have a bug up your ass about it really doesn't matter, though I suspect it is because the analogy actually does work. If you've been so busy not asserting the existence of god, why would it matter to you anyway?

Anyway, the bottom line remains: you cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus. If, as you claim, it is a "shit-for-brains" analogy, then you should have no problem disproving the existence of Santa.

Which I am still waiting for, by the way.




BamaD -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 5:49:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Let's deal with this nonsense first:

quote:

Now you're just making shit up. I haven't made any such assertion.


I don't care if you've ever made any such assertion. It is not relevant to this issue at hand. Your indignity comes across as feigned and in the service of a diversion.

Now, as for this nonsense:

quote:

Bingo my ass. We were talking about Santa Claus. Stop trying to promote your shit-for-brains analogy between Santa and God. Also, I didn't say that it was impossible to disprove Santa Claus. I just said that YOU couldn't, because you are perversely and irrationally concretizing a symbolic character in folklore who represents the spirit of giving. A rational disproof would consist in demonstrating that human nature is entirely lacking in a spirit of giving.


Let's go back to the beginning:

In Post 497 CreativeDominant asked for "scientific cites of the proof of God's invalidity? Not just arguments. Proof." What she failed to realize when she wrote that is that since it is impossible for me (or anyone) to disprove the existence of god I am therefore not obligated to even try. The burden of proof automatically shifts to the person who is asserting the positive (such as the existence of god).

But it is the analogy to Santa Claus that seems to have your panties in a twist. You opened up this side debate by calling the Santa analogy "shit-for-brains" and now you are repeating it. Why you have a bug up your ass about it really doesn't matter, though I suspect it is because the analogy actually does work. If you've been so busy not asserting the existence of god, why would it matter to you anyway?

Anyway, the bottom line remains: you cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus. If, as you claim, it is a "shit-for-brains" analogy, then you should have no problem disproving the existence of Santa.

Which I am still waiting for, by the way.



I find it interesting that you call for a return to the subject (the existance of God ) when the thread is about a terrorest attack in France.



bounty44 -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 5:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
So far there is none to suggest any sort of a supreme being who created life, the universe and everything merely by wishing it into existence. There remains a cornucopia of evidence that none of the gods imagined by humans - including Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah - actually exist. An honest perusal on anyone's part of geology, biology, cosmology and other scientific disciplines, refutes the Bible as well as all other "holy" writings that rely on belief in the supernatural.


the "scientific evidence" you refer to begins with the premise that god does not exist, so of course it wont support his existence.

by contrast, many of the famous scientists throughout history were believers, and today, scientists of all stripes continue to believe and don't find any contradiction in their academic/professional lives, and their faith.

which is a nice segue into saying---god is more so a matter of faith, and not merely a matter of science.

it might help knowing there is nothing strictly "scientific" about evolution, which is predominantly your alternative. there is nothing factual about it either; it is even more of a "faith" position than is belief in a god.

as for the first part of your sentence---the "cornucopia of evidence", if you are genuinely interested in the topic, let me steer you towards josh McDowell's "evidence that demands a verdict", his "more than a carpenter" and lee strobel's "the case for faith" and his "the case for Christ."

atheists don't find god for the same reason criminals don't find cops---they aren't looking and they don't want to.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 5:53:27 PM)

In Post 497 CreativeDominant asked for "scientific cites of the proof of God's invalidity? Not just arguments. Proof." What she failed to realize when she wrote that is that since it is impossible for me (or anyone) to disprove the existence of god I am therefore not obligated to even try. The burden of proof automatically shifts to the person who is asserting the positive (such as the existence of god).

In the first place CreativeDominant is a man, not a woman...a he, not a she. I should know...I'm CD. I'm he...not she.

In the second place, you were the one that suggested that much of these horrendous acts committed in the name of God...or Allah...could be stopped by ridding the world (paraphrasing here) of the ridiculous notion that God/Allah exists. Do you not see that to do that...especially when you're dealing with fanatics...you'll have to convince them of that?



Marc2b -> RE: Paris under attack (11/20/2015 6:31:25 PM)

quote:

I find it interesting that you call for a return to the subject (the existance of God ) when the thread is about a terrorest attack in France.


This thread, like most threads, has delved off into several side debates. I was referencing the side debate between me and Kirata. I presumed the average reader to be intelligent enough to discern that based upon context.



Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625