Right now.....Give me demonstrative, empirical, testable, repeatable evidence that your god exists. Then have it published and peer reviewed. What the **** are you waiting on you bunch of dishonest scumbags???

Make me and Eddie and Rize and David (and the like) shut up. Please do this I really need ya to.

If you can't do this then go diaf (as they say in nvg) and do a gut check for you being a dishonest piece of lowlife **** that spreads lies and biggotry and hatred and homophobia.

I'm so sick of you theist all you do is talk the bull**** talk but you never walk the walk im ****ing pissed.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP YOU PIECES OF ****!!!!

/rant and if no theist can do this then /RGT

Belief in God is based on faith, not science, as is everything else for that matter including science.

faith n. belief that is not based on proof.

visit a shrink.

you dishonest ignorant tool...





from merriam webster
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

synonyms see belief

— on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith


Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>


hey concerto gfy

no evidence????? what I can't believe it......two theists ITT and not one shread of evidence or even a hint of any.....

wow im so suprised.

Right now.... Give me demonstrative, empirical, testable, repeatable evidence that the only things which are true are demonstrable, empirical, testable, and repeatable.

Lagy I'm on your side, but it's like you said;

faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof

You and I both know that it is impossible for them to provide proof of their faith.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe (except polygamists LOL), so long as it does not hurt someone else.

If theists are good, upstanding citizens because of their faith, then I see no problem.

Holy Wars, and Jihad are not acceptable.

we can only move foward as a society once we start believeing things that are most likely to be true and dismissing things that are most likely to be untrue. It is not impossible for them to provide proof of God.

God comes down and says to everyone I'm God and does miracles we will all know he is real (still wouldnt worship the sick POS) But none the less they can easily prove there god if he is real....Thing is...he is not real.

That being said if you know that billions of people believe in things that they can not prove why do you find this acceptable??? espically since most of their beliefs are homophobica, anti woman, anti minority, anti jew etc etc

"The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible."

- Tertullian

Say you were right and say that there were things that were true but unprovable in the scientific arena (which there are not unless the technology isnt there yet). But say there were 1 or 2 things that were true but you could not repeatably test them and show some double blind studies and peer review papers on....Say there were 1 or 2 things like this....would you base your entire world view on this????

if you would then you are a ****ing clueless ignorant piece of dishonest pondscum.

surely thats not you though....

Out of default. I can't tell them they are wrong, because while I might think that parting seas and living in whales is ridiculous and probably never happened, I can't prove that which is most crucial.....whether there is a God or not.

What exactly is that proving?

You can't prove weather or not unicorns exist either...should we all believe in those??

Thanks, OP. Proof positive that stupidity exists on both sides of the debate.

Seriously, cut out all the swearing and ranting and your post says: "Theists: prove something with science that is by definition outside the boundaries of science."

please enlighten us?

Why is this a true statement? Have you verified it? Proven it? Published it?

What is your obsession with "peer reviewed papers"? Are the only things that are true found in "peer reviewed papers"?

You and me both.

Confirmed

Since my previous post was apparently unclear:

You are being an idiot.

You might be the perfect example of an atheist that rejects Christianity for emotional reasons.

Believe first See second........

Also, you sound like a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum, did you just lose your bankroll?

Double Confirmed

Sorry, science is not based on faith in the same way that theism is. I wrote this in another thread:

Proof is a mathematical construct. It does not exist in the real world when meant to satisfy absolute truth. All we can do to comment on reality is support our claims with evidence that they are true. In another thread I wrote this:

What this means is that we cannot know anything for certain. We can only deal with relative certainty. The more evidence we have for a claim, the more likely it is to be true. This is the basis behind science, not some abstract idea of 'proof'.

I can't do this, and do not claim that it is true (I don't want to speak for others though). I agree with you here, in the sense that not everything that is true is currently demonstrable. However, what we call truth is our concept of reality. That which exists in reality must necessarily manifest somehow. If it does not manifest in reality, then it is no different from that which does not exist, at least not from our perspective. By far the most accurate and reliable way we have found to understand reality is the process of science, which hinges upon that demonstrable, empirical, testable, and repeatable evidence. Were someone to suggest another means, we would still need to use that method to verify that it is accurate.

History has taught us that this is a very poor way to find the truth.

Faith != believe without evidence.

Faith = Belief with evidence but without 100% certainty. Acting in a manner that would be consistent with certainty without actual certainty.

OP has faith in science. I find this very cute.

nope i use logic and reason. I'm a skeptic. I'm just mad that so many people believe in a ****ing god with no proof at all. And I used to be like most atheist in this forum that I used the "nice guy approach" I didnt yell at them or mock them for their beliefs but **** that **** anymore. If you are stupid enough to believe in god then you better believe that I'm gonna mock you for it.