Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by James R, Mar 18, 2011.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
because you believe atheists who strictly follow the SM, by believing what is supported by scientific evidence, and disbelieving in what isn't supported by scientific evidence, you believe they're going to eternal hell, aren't you?
i really thought it was common sense:shrug:
in their subjective eye, yes.
religious people believe there's more to life than this life.
atheistic people believe life ends with death, due to no evidence to the contrary.
now, dear Geoffp;
you either are a christian;
and believe atheists are going to heaven.
in which case you're not a christian by definition.
or believe atheists are going to hell.
or are a jehova witness and believe their souls will be destroyed.
or are a liar, and you're not christian at all.
or you're a hypocrite, and you believe atheists are going to hell but are running away from saying it out loud.
so, which is it g?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That would be incorrect.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i stand corrected.
now how about presenting me with something other than "they all said so", and "it's self evident"?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i said "face me", and not "reply to me".
although you started out with so many sentences, the only two last standing were the two i mentionedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
and a personal note D, from this thread i've found out that either i over estimated your intellect, or that you're the kind who puts a friend ahead of logic.
the latter being not so bad.
Actually I did. You're just cherry-picking. For instance the "they all said so" was actually an addendum to my opinion which was asked for. I.e. I was pointing out that my conclusion was much the same as everyone else's: a conclusion you have chosen to ignore.
If you'd bothered to read my post #9 maybe you'd have a clue.
Or maybe you just don't read.
You, for instance, appear to put your own personal "satisfaction" of your accomplishments over and above that of anyone those accomplishments might help in the future.
I think you mean ineffectually. Let's carry on analyzing your not-whining.
Interesting. And why do you suppose the scientists on the forum thought that?
I didn't even have to get to the giant-text whining. Sheesh. But please continue. It's funny watching you hanging after me, complaining and whimpering about arguments I already dealt with. Post some big text again. I promise, it'll all be worth it.
Scifes, Mandella is still alive.
As a friend of mine said, the scientific method (postulation and testing by the community) works for everything (and therefore is the most useful method of learning the truth) because even if God caused something to happen, I want to find out how he did it and learn how to get him to do it for me. And the scientific method is the only way to make sure we can figure that out, because contemplating my naval hasn't proven particularly productive.
One practical problem with the scientific method is, testing and experiments cost money and require resources. This creates a potental problem. Theoretically, preponderance of the data, between two equal weight theories, can be bought simply by how you allocate resources. If I give theory A 90% and theory B 10%, who will have more data? Therefore theory A wins due to the preponderance of the data.
If you look at man-made global warming, the preponderance of the data is stacked on one side. I wonder if both sides have the same resources? The pro's and con's are not equally represented in resources. If reality was important I would spead the data collecting resources over both sides to see how the data stacks without political gaming.
There would never be any funding allowed to prove whether there is God. The physics labs will never get funding for this. Many scientists are mercenaries and woudl go where the money is. If no money, mercenaries will of elsewhere. Since there is no data from top scientists, God can not exist according to the scientific method with no resources. We can decide the outcome of competing theories, before we start by simply shifting or stacking the resources. We can ake use of the scientific method resource allocation loophole for reality defining. This capacity to manipulte the outcome is a problem that needs to be addressed.
The problem is, they can't find any science to back their claims - so they resort to re-writing science text books.
Rewriting books is the liberal and PC thing. Those in religion tend to perpetuate theories that were once in vogue. Creationism was not invented this century but is from 6000 years ago. Leaving words out of classical literature, to change the past, so it can look like the present, is purely PC. Religion is more about changing the present into the past. While PC and liberal tries to alter the past so the present appears more valid.
i don't think it's PC, i think it's MAC...
Correct, the con side, which says there is no man made global warming, are much better funded by their corporate sponsors... and yet they are still losing the argument. Pretty neat huh?
Why hasn't this thread been cesspooled?
Because James started it?
I suspect he doesn't have any attachment to it.
Because its the companion discussion thread to a Formal Debate and it belongs in the Formal Debates subforums.
Separate names with a comma.