No one can disprove God, but we also can’t disprove leprechauns, fairies, ufos, big foot, unicorns or Santa Claus, all of which have the same evidence as a god. Many others have pointed out that you can’t disprove a negative, which is why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, why can’t you grasp this very simple concept?
Until atheists start telling everyone they disagree with they deserve eternal torture in hell then they will NEVER be as bad as religious nuts.
Teaching religion is equivalent to child abuse.
Religion must die
Religious people are morons and hold the world back
my issue with atheists (te ones I know) is they do the same shit Christians do. I’m not saying that the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim. I know that, science logic law 101. If a religious person claims that god is real, they instigated the argument and proof is on them. On a logical level they are just as extremeists because they are using personal attacks.
I see this whole thing as a clusterfuck because a large majority, or a very vocal minority, do the same thing others accuse the others of doing.
That the order and systematical work of the universe just happened.
I find it more absurd that atheists use that “you don’t believe you will be tortured” in describing Christianity. It’s even said in the Bible that believing in god doesn’t save you from hell and i don’t need to post verses of that.
On the Child abuse topic. I was an atheist all my life and my parents were atheists as well who expressed the same feelings towards religion here and because of my life experience i hold allot of value in teaching kids about God. In this world, there is allot of negativity and injustice if we just teach that there is no greater good then it just dimishes the value of life. Because how good is the goodness of this world if in the end the injustice and evil still exists. If my understanding is wrong then let me ask you, if there is no god do you think Hitler, Osama, Jeffrey Dahmer, or the Christians who persecuted/murdered people… just got away with it?
The biggest problem with what Ken Ham is saying is that he is trying to separate “observational science” with “historical science.” But, what is historical vs. observational? Nye was getting to it when he was talking about CSI. Let’s say a guy committed a murder a few days ago. Can we use our observational science to convict a suspect? How about this was a few years ago? Decades? What if we wanted to prove a historical figure committed murder hundreds of years ago? When does “historical science” kick in?
Ah yes, the whole “well God must exist because how else do you explain bad people doing bad things?” argument. Which is often used by the “without God there are no morals” crowd.
Allow me to answer your question: your question is retarded.
Put aside jail, assassination, suicide, whatever: what exactly does it mean if a terrible human being gets away with being a terrible human being? That you’re looking for divinity in this “puzzle” is folly: that’s reality. Sometimes, shitpiles succeed. The only way to stop that is for the human race to get its shit together, review and update its laws, actually enforce them, etc.
The first time i referenced you in my great post here, i thought you were one of the 1-5 year olds of SRK. I don’t remember you at all. Even if you consider me old or not, i’m still the greatest and undefeated religion thread debater in SRK history. The dragon that has never been slayed. I made guys like Speccs, Fishjiz and his cheerleader Edgargod cry in religion threads.
Speccs ended up crying like a woman who continuously denies she is wrong: "i don’t know… i’m not telling you why…"
Fishjiz ended up crying with "Is it important for you to look cool to Jesus or to SRK?"
and then Edgargod cried after Fishjiz’ slaughtering: “You are not so clever as you think… i thought you were banned!”
Shit like this lead to SRK’s change to the PG era. When i was gone for a year, years ago. I would see these guys religion bash in pro-transexualism threads. Flaming anybody who tried to reason out on how not right it is for men to put on make up, fake boobs, and listen to Beyonce songs. Yes Fishjiz, this PG era is your fault.
And LMAO at Spects. Until the time we humans manage to get language, order, and work pop out as we are sitting down then you are wrong.
I can easily take a dump in your toilet when you’re not home, form it into that character in your avatar using a tooth brush, and leave it there unflushed. When your mom throws out accusations of you playing with your shit and not flushing it, are you going to argue back with your infamous “i don’t know… I’m not telling you why because i’m not making claims” lines when getting logically destroyed?
…Wow I’m not sure what I am more shocked by. The fact you didn’t understand fucking shit I told you or that 2 people were equally as stupid in clicking agree on your post.
Oh so some theories are better at explaining where the matter for the Big Bang came from based on evidence? Really now?! I would love to this evidence we currently have for that. This is my first time hearing about this as a Scientist. I’ve heard about evidence post big bang, but you know why I haven’t heard about much pre big bang? BECAUSE WE DON’T FUCKING HAVE ANY RIGHT NOW YOU DIP SHIT!
If you bothered to listen to Nye during the debate he was asked this question and he said “We don’t know right now” this because well, WE DON’T FUCKING KNOW RIGHT NOW. In the sciences it is still one of the unsolved questions of how the stuff that exploded got there in the first place. It’s all hypothesis right now as nothing concrete has turned up.
So till you actually come up with evidence, no theory has a standing and are all equal until there is actually a foot hole to stand on. That was my point you idiot. Then again what the fuck would I know as a scientist?
If you are going to auto-pilot like a fighting game player the least you could do is get a better auto-pilot. Your reply was seriously one where you didn’t think about what you were saying.
hahahaha specs annoying yet another intelligent person. That is what specs does, he is the donkey that thinks himself the king whilst calling the lion an ass. I actually blocked him awhile ago, but I see his silly posts in your replies.
I don’t really know any subject that can be discussed on SRK at a high level. Out of all them however, perhaps science is the most out of reach for these people. The programmer and brain cancer patient somehow think they know more science than the scientist, as for myself, I was a science major in undergrad too. Apparently that annoys specs like everything else about me makes him so jealous. I get the feeling he wishes he was me.
well from a science point of view they havent proven religion as a whole is bad for children. Their are just so many variables, unless someone actually does a research paper to prove it’s bad. Also are we really saying religion is bad or fundamental christianity since that’s basically what the debate was about. People are using the word religion which is a very broad umbrella…but i feel this thread is purely about fundamental christianity which is where the real nutjobs come from. Rarely have i ever heard someone say buddism is bad, or hinduism.
which is more or less how i was brought up. religion was some forced upon me, i chose to believe in god. i grew up in the east coast and i think the problem and idea of being forced upon children may be limited to the fundamental christians of the south. I was allowed to believe what i wanted, i went to a catholic church but it wasnt anything crazy. It was something that helped me out as a kid, i lived in a bad neighborhood and it helped me get through some serious stuff. Stuff that science wasnt going to help me with. I know how illogical believing in god can seem, but to me it will always feel right. But it wont be something i force a kid to believe…if i have a child i will introduce them to religion, but won’t push the ideas. I would give them the basic concepts that make a good person or respectable member of society.
Religion and science both have a place and i personally think they are closer together than people think. To me religion and faith of the unknown give science a reason to prove it otherwise.
The PG era analogy would be way more apt if you were ever entertaining, clever, or worth reading in general.
This is more like “oh look, more of the same shit.”
In order:
Idiocy. (EDIT - Also, one of the people who agreed with my post is way smarter than you, and the other is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY smarter than you. You wouldn’t compare to them on their worst day and your best day. Just FYI.)
Actually, if you weren’t dumber than the empty left half of my scrotum, you’d realize that we hypothesize about shit we have little to no information about all the time. But the “theory” part comes in when there’s more to go on than fuck all. So we start to theorize about aspects of the big bang through cosmic background radiation, or about Mars possibly having once sustained life based on its current conditions. Don’t grind your teeth too hard there lady: evidence tells us that can lead to bone loss in the teeth.
Idiocy, for reasons already explained.
Idiocy, for reasons already explained.
I seriously hope you’re not actually a scientist. Because a simple Google search on theory vs. hypothesis just dismantled your crying like it was Cisco’s glass jaw running at high speed into Fishjie’s stationary, outstretched, and just to be safe, adamantium-laced fist. If you are one, can I get your employer’s name? Somebody needs to know their employee’s incompetence.
With all due respect my dear friend. It is fully possible to disprove certain deities by explaining and exploring what X really is, like for example lightning. - It also is very important to put forward that there is not just ONE possible deity. There’s a possibility that several thousands of them may be real. Just putting it out there because it is one of the most important things that we as atheists, skeptics, and free-thinkers should make note of when having a discussion about the subject with a religious opposition that may just be talking about one deity.
Well no fucking shit sherlock. It doesn’t address my point.
Once again the fucking idiot goes on auto-pilot. You are currently doing the mash DP version of logic where you fucking throw everything out thinking you are so smart when you are actually an idiot mashing DP.
No it actually didn’t because you actually didn’t address anything. Your logic so shitty you can’t even understand when you’ve just posted a wall of shit. Sure we hypothesize all the time, guess when we do that? When we got no fucking evidence. Kinda like we do with the pre-big bang conditions idiot. Any scientist who is actually honest knows that we got nothing at the moment so until we do have something no theory is better than another.
And yes I am a scientist. I’m one with more publications in a year that you probably write in a life time. But then again what do I fucking know about theory. It’s only my fucking job as a theoretician to make theory. But hey you totally know way more than I do. I mean…well…what do you even fucking do besides post dumb things on SRK?
And if you doubt it feel free to wander over to reddit where I’m a panelist on the /r/AskScience panel.
Kind of like that time when science disproved God when it proved the earth was billions of years old, or that time it proved it wasn’t the center of the universe, or that time it proved even the sun wasn’t the center of the universe.
