The Blasphemy Challenge

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:33 pm

hubird wrote:Science can only speak about things that at least in theory could be prooven.
You can't proove the existence or non-existence of 'God'.
An atheist however is 'just' convinced that god doesn't exist.

Nothing so far even hints of existence of God, the God concept that is described in the bible. Or is there a new found concept of God that suddenly conforms to the laws of physics?

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:37 pm

Nothing so far even hints of existence of God, the God concept that is described in the bible. Or is there a new found concept of God that suddenly conforms to the laws of physics?

There are a lot of concepts of "God", chief.
some personal, some impersonal.

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:43 pm

No one in this thread called believers morons beside yourself.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:44 pm

maybe you should go back and read the first few posts over again...

BingoTheClowno · Post by **BingoTheClowno** » Mon May 21, 2007 6:46 pm

I did.
Can you please quote who called believers "morons'?

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:02 pm

Ok, sport. I know where you are going with this one, and while I dont like to steal anybody's thunder, I will make an exception in your case..

They were calling the believers in that video "morons" simply becuase they were believers, not because they made a lousy case.
Because BOTH sides were pretty damned lame, making tired old arguments that have been heard a billion times over.

But what was this thread about? "Hey look at this lame attempt at a debate"
no.
it was "Hey look how stupid these christian guys are!"

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:42 pm

No, don't get me started. Look in the dictionary. A fact is something everyone can agree on. We don't agree that god exists therefore it is not a fact. Whatever proof you think you might have is not scientific in any way. Maybe that does not matter to you but it does matter to rational people.

manfriday wrote:
I for one am 100% not an agnostic.
No you aren't. YOu cant know for absolute 100% certain that there is no God.

Post by **hubird** » Mon May 21, 2007 7:57 pm

manfriday wrote:
Sorry Manfriday, but it's even you who want us to believe it's possible anyway, as you use the prove thing as an arguement
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here?
At this point I think it is about as probably that there is a God as it is that the universe sprang into existence out of nothing.
Either prospect is rather mind boggling, really.

What I meant is, if you challenge Braincell to let him proove that God does not exist, you challenge him to proove in a scientific way that it is true (that he's not existing).
typically an agnost will say, science can't do any valuable pronouncement about the subject.
An atheist will confirm that, but add the notion of his believe of non-existence.

So, why wouldn't Braincell be allowed to call himself an agnost? (disregarding even that he doesn't want to see himself that way, as he is calling himself probably an atheist).

Your other contributions are to sectaric and baked in stone to me to comment, the pictures of Bingo illustrate nicely my suspicion of where to find the real fundamentalists

cheers.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:06 pm

If I say the moon is made of green cheese let me see you prove that it is not. Does that mean anything is possible? Don't be so ridiculous. Did you talk to god and he answered you? Honestly, because if he answered then I think you really need to get a good shrink and some heavy medication.

Post by **hubird** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:13 pm

braincell wrote:If I say the moon is made of green cheese let me see you prove that it is not. Does that mean anything is possible?

i thought the same, and even made a contribution about this scientific principle:
you can't prove something is true, you only can prove something is not true...
I got stranded somehow, so I cut it

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:21 pm

Whatever proof you think you might have is not scientific in any way.

I never claimed to have any proof that God exists.
I dont know if God exists or not.

Maybe that does not matter to you but it does matter to rational people.

Nice. Thanks for proving my point again man.

You cant stop can you?

What I meant is, if you challenge Braincell to let him proove that God does not exist, you challenge him to proove in a scientific way that it is true

I never challenged him to prove that God does not exist.
One cannot prove anything does not exist.

So, why wouldn't Braincell be allowed to call himself an agnost?

He is allowed to call himself an agnostic.

Your other contributions are to sectaric and baked in stone to me to comment

What comments are to sectaric or "baked in stone"?
Are they as sectaric and baked in stone as the belief some people here seem to have that anyone who ISNT an atheist or agnostic is some sort of moron or is not 'rational'?

the pictures of Bingo illustrate nicely my suspicion of where to find the real fundamentalists

The pictures bingo posted only illutrate that there are assholes in the world.
Sadly, a lot of the atheists here seem to be just as bad as the people in the pictures he posted.

If I say the moon is made of green cheese let me see you prove that it is not.

Come on man. Couldnt you have picked a better analogy than that?
The moon? Give me a break. We can all look at the moon. We've been there. We know what it is made of.
If you had said "let me see you prove there is no such thing as flying pink unicorns" you would have made a decent point, but sadly your wit seems to have gotten in your way again.

Did you talk to god and he answered you

If you can show me a post where I said I believed in God (I have said severeal times I am undecided), or offered any proof of his existence, then please do.
Otherwise you are just making as ass of yourself.
You really are collosally bad at this whole debate thing.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:24 pm

thought the same, and even made a contribution about this scientific principle:
you can't prove something is true, you only can prove something is not true...

Yes, and we have been there, investigated it and I believe we can say conclusively that it is NOT made of green cheese....

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:41 pm

I don't see your proof. There is an orange orbiting the earth at a distance of 200 miles. Prove to me it is not there.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Mon May 21, 2007 9:33 pm

It's a shame Kirk Cameron wasn't debating you in that video, braincell..
He would have looked a lot more intelligent.

Have you ever taken a course in logic?
Of course you haven't. why am I even asking?

well this was great fun kids.

Hysteric · Post by **Hysteric** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:04 am

I wish ET would turn up........ his radio.

petal · Post by **petal** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:46 am

manfriday wrote:
The pictures bingo posted only illutrate that there are assholes in the world.

It might not be scientific, but it still is a funny remark given the context.

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:49 am

What, no proof the orange isn't there? I understand your logic now. You have secret proof. Your logic is better than mine because you have magic logic. The type of logic which only you and your clandestine magicians can understand. You can go back to your miracle club now. I'm not intelligent enough to understand your wacky brand of logic.

manfriday wrote:It's a shame Kirk Cameron wasn't debating you in that video, braincell..
He would have looked a lot more intelligent.

Have you ever taken a course in logic?
Of course you haven't. why am I even asking?

well this was great fun kids.

Me$$iah · Post by **Me$$iah** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:03 am

I called Cameron and Comfort morons.....and I stand by it.
I do this not just because they are believers, but because I have spent time listening to the Way of the Master. Seriously, I challenga anyone to watch the now infamous 'banana clip' and tell me they could take these guys seriously. Morons, thats what they are, deluded weak minded idiots.... and I stand by that too.

In the interests of full disclosure, I must state that I have spoken to Sapient and Kelly on several occasions, and have 'known' them for several years. We all were members of the same forum. That said tho, I actually find Sapient and his whole RRS thing slightly childish. But it has been great in stirring up debate, and that, i believe, was his intention in starting the thing.

There are much better exponents of theistic thinking out there and there much better athiestic thinkers.

p.s. as for scientific evidence of evolution, the case has been proven. Evolution is indeed a fact. Any with doubt look up Retroviral Insertions.

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:15 am

What, no proof the orange isn't there?

no, there isnt. but you changed directions on me.
There is no proof therer isnt a magic floating orange in space.
It could be right next to the pink unicorn for all I know.

But that has nothing to do with your stupid green cheezy moon comment.

There are much better exponents of theistic thinking out there and there much better athiestic thinkers.

This I can agree with 100%. I thought everyone in that debate was rather lame.

as for scientific evidence of evolution, the case has been proven. Evolution is indeed a fact. Any with doubt look up Retroviral Insertions.

agreed.

Post by **hubird** » Tue May 22, 2007 5:37 am

manfriday wrote:

If I say the moon is made of green cheese let me see you prove that it is not.
Come on man. Couldnt you have picked a better analogy than that?
The moon? Give me a break. We can all look at the moon. We've been there. We know what it is made of.
If you had said "let me see you prove there is no such thing as flying pink unicorns" you would have made a decent point, but sadly your wit seems to have gotten in your way again

That's what I meant Manfriday, when I called your arguing 'sectaric and baked in stone'.
You almost admit Braincell has a point, but you don't give it him just because there are better examples to give than he did...weak it is.

Mostly, when people start quoting a long list of sentences and sarcasticly commenting them, sentence after sentence, then I 'm sure the writer won't give in one single point.
His position then is clear as hell, baked in stone