God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[Minimalist]

Yeah, yeah...archaeology went through that phase in the early 20h century. Most archaeologists were nothing more than preachers masquerading as such and declaring that every rock they found was something that "moses" or some other fictional bible character had pissed on.

Your kind never takes it well when the rest of us catch on to your act.

[Erinome]

You cry out for evidence like a broken record, but you dismiss all evidence from logic and philosophy, and now science doesn't matter either. So, we can talk about history and archaelogy and other subjects, and soon you will dismiss all of that as irrelevent too. Before we continue with this charade, I just want you to answer one question:

What evidence, besides God knocking on your door and shaking your hand, will you even consider? Are there any doors in your mind which aren't bolted shut?

A tiny morsel of heavily scrutinized evidence and I will consider it. There is a wealth of evidence that a god is unnecessary for the world to be, and yet you ignore it, remaining glued to your belief for which you have no valid evidence whatsoever.

The evidence is basically knocking at your door and extending it's hand toward you, and you just shut your eyes, cover your ears, and sing "LA LA LA LA LA There has to be a god, fuck evidence.. LA LA LA". There is no bolt on our door. We're begging you to prove the existence of a supernatural being, afterlife, etc, but you can't, so why should we believe a word of it?

[lucent]

Again, you show your intellectual dishonesty, or what I am starting to suspect is your total inability to follow your own logic. I provided evidence, you rejected it on the basis that creation journals are "garbage" and they're not "real" scientists. Now you're saying credentials don't matter and all that is important is evidence. Incredible. You seem to be becoming a caricature of yourself before my very eyes. Are you some kind of atheist chat robot stuck in a loop? Could you pass a turing test?

It has nothing to do with me. This has already been explained to you. Do you actually have any evidence?

Credentials are jack shit. It's the evidence that counts. THAT'S science.

[edk]

Again, you show your intellectual dishonesty, or what I am starting to suspect is your total inability to follow your own logic. I provided evidence, you rejected it on the basis that creation journals are "garbage" and they're not "real" scientists. Now you're saying credentials don't matter and all that is important is evidence. Incredible. You seem to be becoming a caricature of yourself before my very eyes. Are you some kind of atheist chat robot stuck in a loop? Could you pass a turing test?

Could you pass a politeness test? Calling people robots isn't very nice.

If mainstream science is wrong and the Universe is young, evolution didn't happen and there was a global flood, that's pretty compelling evidence that the bible is true, isn't it?

Indeed, but can you prove that?

[Minimalist]

you rejected it on the basis that creation journals are "garbage"

Creation journals are garbage because creation "science" is garbage. The problem is not the "journal" it is the "creation" part.


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-creationscience.htm

The near complete absence of a scientific theory of creationism has been an embarrassment to that movement ever since it started. Creation scientists claim to have scientific evidence -- tons and tons of it, according to their charming and affable spokesman, Duane Gish -- but they never produce it. The welcome page for talk.origins, the Internet discussion group where evolution and creation are hotly debated, says up front: "No one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us." (3) A study of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 68 scientific journals over a 3-year period found that only 18 attempted to make a case for scientific creationism, and these were rejected because they were apparently written by laymen with a high-school level understanding of their subjects. (4) The simple fact is, creationists do not have any scientific evidence to support their hypothesis. If they had it, they would offer it.

[lucent]

A tiny morsel of heavily scrutinized evidence and I will consider it. There is a wealth of evidence that a god is unnecessary for the world to be, and yet you ignore it, remaining glued to your belief for which you have no valid evidence whatsoever.

There is no evidence that God is unnecessary. To prove that, you would have to prove the Universe created itself from nothing. That anyone would actually believe that the Universe spontaneously generated itself is amazing in itself. You actually have a lot more faith than I do to believe that kind of nonsense.

The evidence is basically knocking at your door and extending it's hand toward you, and you just shut your eyes, cover your ears, and sing "LA LA LA LA LA There has to be a god, fuck evidence.. LA LA LA". There is no bolt on our door. We're begging you to prove the existence of a supernatural being, afterlife, etc, but you can't, so why should we believe a word of it?

I know all about the evidence, because I used to believe it. I believed it because that is what I learned in school, and what the secular world states as factual without argument. It was when I actually investigated whether it had any validity that I found that evolution, for example, is predicated upon a bunch of highly dubious conclusions for which there isn't an actual shred of real evidence in sight. It is your sacred cow. It is the alter the you bow down and worship at while you mutter to yourself "there is no god there is no god".

[edk]

I know all about the evidence, because I used to believe it. I believed it because that is what I learned in school, and what the secular world states as factual without argument. It was when I actually investigated whether it had any validity that I found that evolution, for example, is predicated upon a bunch of highly dubious conclusions for which there isn't an actual shred of real evidence in sight. It is your sacred cow. It is the alter the you bow down and worship at while you mutter to yourself "there is no god there is no god".

Which highly dubious conclusions are those?

Edit: Also, to clarify, I have never bowed down at any altars, worshipped sacred cows or indeed anything at all, or muttered to myself, or muttered "there is no god there is no god". I don't need to do those things. That would be like muttering to myself "the sky is blue water is wet circles are round".

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no evidence that God is unnecessary. To prove that, you would have to prove the Universe created itself from nothing. That anyone would actually believe that the Universe spontaneously generated itself is amazing in itself. You actually have a lot more faith than I do to believe that kind of nonsense.

I know all about the evidence, because I used to believe it. I believed it because that is what I learned in school, and what the secular world states as factual without argument. It was when I actually investigated whether it had any validity that I found that evolution, for example, is predicated upon a bunch of highly dubious conclusions for which there isn't an actual shred of real evidence in sight. It is your sacred cow. It is the alter the you bow down and worship at while you mutter to yourself "there is no god there is no god".

He would have to prove no such thing. Figure out why for yourself.

You clearly do not, and evidence does not require belief. You obviously did not "learn it in school". You may have "heard it in school", but your posts indicate that you learned exactly nothing about the subject. You investigated nothing, you simply swallowed the koolaid. Your description of evolution is the most solid evidence for the statements I've just made that could possibly be asked for. Sacred cows, altars, this is projection. Leave your faith out of areas it does not belong.

What's the ETA on that evidence you made claims to?

[Cyberman]

Atheists are supposed to worship sacred cows at an altar now? Why didn't I get the email?

Interesting how your strawman uses religious imagery in such a derogatory fashion, lampooning us as the foolish ones for 'bowing down and worshipping' something (though of course you knew already that we don't). Projecting your insecurities onto us doesn't exactly strengthen your position or help your argument.

[Erinome]

A tiny morsel of heavily scrutinized evidence and I will consider it. There is a wealth of evidence that a god is unnecessary for the world to be, and yet you ignore it, remaining glued to your belief for which you have no valid evidence whatsoever.

There is no evidence that God is unnecessary. To prove that, you would have to prove the Universe created itself from nothing. That anyone would actually believe that the Universe spontaneously generated itself is amazing in itself. You actually have a lot more faith than I do to believe that kind of nonsense.

The evidence is basically knocking at your door and extending it's hand toward you, and you just shut your eyes, cover your ears, and sing "LA LA LA LA LA There has to be a god, fuck evidence.. LA LA LA". There is no bolt on our door. We're begging you to prove the existence of a supernatural being, afterlife, etc, but you can't, so why should we believe a word of it?

I know all about the evidence, because I used to believe it. I believed it because that is what I learned in school, and what the secular world states as factual without argument. It was when I actually investigated whether it had any validity that I found that evolution, for example, is predicated upon a bunch of highly dubious conclusions for which there isn't an actual shred of real evidence in sight. It is your sacred cow. It is the alter the you bow down and worship at while you mutter to yourself "there is no god there is no god".

Without argument? You have no right to call us ignorant sir. Evolution has been desperately argued, but the facts remain.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...opic_id=46

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

As for the universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM

The smartest man on earth doesn't subscribe to your nonsense, so what does that tell you.

There is still so much we don't know, but at least we admit it. There is enough evidence, however, to effectively conclude that gods aren't necessary for the universe and life as we know it to be.