|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 30, 2023 21:34:32 GMT
Basically, you atheists are here thinking you are showing some kind of intellectual superiority over believers, when in actuality all you show is ignorance. You are literally too stupid to insult. Congradulations.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 31, 2023 1:14:15 GMT
The irony in this statement, is incredible. Skeptics need to be right every day, but believers only need to be right once. Actually you have to be right about 1) there is a God, and 2) he is the one you worship, and 3) didn’t he side the with his Chosen people.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 31, 2023 12:09:10 GMT
Not one atheist here can disprove my OP. Just because you don't see it, can't measure it, can't weigh it, can't reduce it to a equation, doesn't mean it's not there. And that burns your asses. LOL And you can`t disprove that Krishna, Vishnu or any other Gods you don`t belive in don`t exist. And you can`t prove that the God you belive in exist.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 31, 2023 12:11:31 GMT
Along the same lines, just because you can't smell it doesn't mean there's not something rotten in Denmark. That will be the surströmming 🤮 That's from Sweden not Denmark.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 31, 2023 12:28:27 GMT
Not one atheist here can disprove my OP. Just because you don't see it, can't measure it, can't weigh it, can't reduce it to a equation, doesn't mean it's not there. And that burns your asses. LOL If it can't be measured by any form, it's probably because it doesn't physically affect our universe so we don't really need to worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 31, 2023 14:43:56 GMT
So all you non-believers rely on scientists to tell you what's what. Science is your religion. This is your science:
"Scientists are guilty of practicing exclusions. Meaning, they take in all the data, and then they just don't mention what doesn't line up."
Whatever doesn't fit in with their paradigm for whatever reason (like they simply don't know), gets tossed. And that's because like all you know-it-alls, you can't admit that you don't know and you can't stand the fact that believers DO know.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 31, 2023 14:58:32 GMT
This is your science. . . No, this is what an uneducated nitwit in the grip of absurd ideologies imagines science to be, since she can't be bothered to actually learn anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 31, 2023 15:04:34 GMT
So all you non-believers rely on scientists to tell you what's what. Science is your religion. This is your science: "Scientists are guilty of practicing exclusions. Meaning, they take in all the data, and then they just don't mention what doesn't line up." Whatever doesn't fit in with their paradigm for whatever reason (like they simply don't know), gets tossed. And that's because like all you know-it-alls, you can't admit that you don't know and you can't stand the fact that believers DO know. "So all you non-believers rely on scientists to tell you what's what. Science is your religion." That's a really dumb argument, that's like saying "medical science" is my religion because I'd rather go to an actual certified doctor than go see a witch doctor or take some New Age herbal bullshit or something. "Scientists are guilty of practicing exclusions. Meaning, they take in all the data, and then they just don't mention what doesn't line up." Individual doctors can be guilty of that, which is what peer review is for (which you also seem to be against for whatever reason) "Whatever doesn't fit in with their paradigm for whatever reason (like they simply don't know), gets tossed" Yes because if there's no evidence of a claim, than that claim can be disregarded until evidence is present. Kinda like how we can't just throw people in jail for simply being accused of a crime, we have to have actual evidence first. This has already been explained to your simpleton brain. "And that's because like all you know-it-alls, you can't admit that you don't know and you can't stand the fact that believers DO know." Well no actually you don't "know", notice how you've yet to present any evidence. You might as well saying you "know" Cthulu exists, without any evidence that's just a riddiculous and baseless claim.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 31, 2023 16:14:13 GMT
So all you non-believers rely on scientists to tell you what's what. Science is your religion. This is your science: "Scientists are guilty of practicing exclusions. Meaning, they take in all the data, and then they just don't mention what doesn't line up." Whatever doesn't fit in with their paradigm for whatever reason (like they simply don't know), gets tossed. And that's because like all you know-it-alls, you can't admit that you don't know and you can't stand the fact that believers DO know. Everything you just wrote, is wrong on so many levels.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 31, 2023 16:40:56 GMT
So all you non-believers rely on scientists to tell you what's what. Science is your religion. This is your science: "Scientists are guilty of practicing exclusions. Meaning, they take in all the data, and then they just don't mention what doesn't line up." Whatever doesn't fit in with their paradigm for whatever reason (like they simply don't know), gets tossed. And that's because like all you know-it-alls, you can't admit that you don't know and you can't stand the fact that believers DO know. No sweetheart, it’s about the evidence. I don’t need a degree in science to make reasonably assessments about reality.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 31, 2023 22:23:34 GMT
So all you non-believers rely on scientists to tell you what's what. Science is your religion. This is your science: "Scientists are guilty of practicing exclusions. Meaning, they take in all the data, and then they just don't mention what doesn't line up." Whatever doesn't fit in with their paradigm for whatever reason (like they simply don't know), gets tossed. And that's because like all you know-it-alls, you can't admit that you don't know and you can't stand the fact that believers DO know. No sweetheart, it’s about the evidence. I don’t need a degree in science to make reasonably assessments about reality. And I already told you who you rely on for that 'evidence', hon.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 31, 2023 22:38:36 GMT
No sweetheart, it’s about the evidence. I don’t need a degree in science to make reasonably assessments about reality. And I already told you who you rely on for that 'evidence', hon. And who is that? ![](http://media.al.com/opinion/photo/dana-carvey-as-church-lady-yahoo-video-screenshotjpg-14114a22e3225fb2.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jan 31, 2023 22:52:19 GMT
So this bunny was hopping down a road when he tripped on a rock and fell into a ditch. Quick as a bunny (well duh), he hopped up and shouted, "Evidence? What evidence?"
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Feb 1, 2023 0:01:59 GMT
And I already told you who you rely on for that 'evidence', hon. And who is that? ![](http://media.al.com/opinion/photo/dana-carvey-as-church-lady-yahoo-video-screenshotjpg-14114a22e3225fb2.jpg) I well aware that you atheists like to relegate God to a level that you can ridicule. My concept of God is a lot more expansive than yours.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 1, 2023 0:17:22 GMT
What other response would a rational person have? Seeing things before they happen is a common thing, but you don't actually have true foresight. After an event, our brain tricks itself into believing it remembers it before it happened. To my knowledge there are no documented cases of foresight because it doesn't exist, one only 'remembers' the foresight after. Otherwise you could write it down and prove the world wrong, but no one has ever done that, to my knowledge. Why would I want to prove it to the world? Maybe you would like to prove it to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 1, 2023 10:43:22 GMT
And where there is no evidence, there is probably no phenomenon. Some of us have our own evidence and reasons for believing. Then there IS evidence in your opinion. In which case your situation isn't what this thread is about. I am interpreting 'see' as detect evidence of...not literally eye sight seeing.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 1, 2023 12:58:53 GMT
So expansive, in fact, that it literally means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Feb 1, 2023 14:24:28 GMT
Why would I want to prove it to the world? Maybe you would like to prove it to yourself. Trust me, I could not possibly be more convinced than I already am. In fact, I stopped practicing my spirituality years ago, because life is getting so weird that I felt like my head was going to explode. My puny mortal brain was pushed too far, and I decided I didn't want to keep growing, because I couldn't handle it. I just wanted some normalcy. I still feel like a coward, though.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Feb 1, 2023 14:25:55 GMT
Some of us have our own evidence and reasons for believing. Then there IS evidence in your opinion. In which case your situation isn't what this thread is about. I am interpreting 'see' as detect evidence of...not literally eye sight seeing. If you say so. I think the thread title is a bit open to interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 1, 2023 15:28:47 GMT
Just because you can`t see Vishnu, does not mean Vishnu does not exist.
Would you call that a good argument, or is it only good when its about a God you belive in?
|
|