I do like to wine, specially white sweet ones. I only moan when sex is involved.
Now give me that bottle you sexy girl!!
P.S.: The rest of your post was worthless, thus a good example why atheists bitch on these forums...
Challenge to atheists....
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
I do like to wine, specially white sweet ones. I only moan when sex is involved.
Now give me that bottle you sexy girl!!
P.S.: The rest of your post was worthless, thus a good example why atheists bitch on these forums...
I wouldn't presume to know that which I cannot discern.
But if this is the case then god is empirically and effectively non-existent as far as we are concerned. Whether or not this means that god is actually non-existent in a metaphycial sense depends upon your ontological position. It certainly puts god beyond any scientific or rational method of discovery.
~Raithere
YAWN.
Here is a challenge for you. Think of something that doesn't exist. Anything. I for example have just thought that there is a dwarf inside a paperweight which is responsible for what colour of underwear I choose in each given day. And I could come up with limitless variations of that same dwarf, or maybe the dwarf is a balloon, and the paperweight a shark! Maybe none of these things exist at all.
But the point is the likelihood of anything existing which I invent with nothing but imagination is so small that it doesn't warrant believing. It might as well not exist. When you strongly believe something that does not have evidence to warrant believing, then you are delusional. If in the impossible event that something I conjur out of my imagination is true, then that is a fluke so extreme, I should have won every lottery on Earth in one day.
You're not in a position to be an arrogant twat either... the odds of your delusion being true are so small as close to 0% as you can get. Your delusion is no better than believers in astrology, psychic's... etc.
Rather than science proving your delusion true, try it the other way round. Science has steadily shown us that supertition is just that.
This can and has been done through statistical analysis. If prayer worked (beyond a placebo effect) to improve health, wealth, or anything else it’s effect would show up statistically in the population. It doesn’t, which is powerful evidence against any effect of prayer.
~Raithere
I think prayer is the easiest one to test, too. Perhaps we could examine the methodology of the previous prayer experiment...
http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=122
If the placebo effect explains prayer, then it is still delusional to think the effect is from a supreme being, rather than our own minds. An atheist could enjoy the placebo effect as easily as a religious person.
Why the hell would a theist come in a science forum telling every atheist is following "blind faith" and not expect to get attacked on all sides? Only an nincapoot or an idiot would even atempt at going at an overwhelming atheistic website and spout such BS! Let him try and do the same in any atheist forum and the results will be exactly the same. Furthermore if an atheist were to go to a christian website and claim religion to be what it really is "bull shit" he/she would instantly get banned! Sciforums as far as Iknow has never banned a person for his/her beliefs, no matter how freaking irrational, and ilogical they might have been.
lets not follow the same path.
therefore empiricism always has a margin for error
as far as one's senses are concerned, yes.
Many atheists maintain their stance on the basis that god is not revealed by empiricism, but a god that could be perceivable by empiricism wouldn't be god (because they wouldn't be transcendental)
exactly
just like the ability to directly perceive the president is dependent upon one's ontological position (ie it relies upon one having a shared interest with the president on his terms rather than simply barging into his office to demand to see him)
science simple means applying a process to get a result that is repeatable
obviously there is no empirical argument for god but there are numerous rational ones based on inference
but as far as actually directly perceiving god, that is fully dependent on the will of god and not one's intellectual prowess (much like seeing the president is dependent on the will of the president and not one's mental capacity)
All human perception is prone to error.
Three questions:
1. If god has no effect upon the world in what way can god be said to exist?
2. Given god’s existence, if god has no discernable effect what difference does god’s existence mean to man?
3. I can posit and rationalize an infinite array of such god-beings. One out of infinity is zero, therefore the probability that any specific god exists is zero. What then is the rationalization for selecting one?
No. You’re talking about the limits of our senses. What I mean by ontological position is your philosophical stance on the nature of being.
One may, for instance, take a subjective stance that defines all perceived objects as real. This would allow for god to be real for those who perceive god. But then this also means that hobbits, unicorns, and klingons are real.
Inference is completely acceptable from an empirical/scientific position. All atomic and sub-atomic theory is dependent upon inference, so are our theories and laws about the fundamental forces and energy (e.g. No one has ever seen gravity; we infer its existence through secondary observations).
Rational arguments are well and good but I’ve yet to see one for god that stands up to scrutiny. Nor do rational arguments provide a basis for ontological standing, at least not from an empirical pov.
~Raithere
VitalOne,
Ho: there are no Gods in existence.
Here is the experiment: Right now ask your God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses, etc.. (whichever it is you believe in) to levitate me from my chair. I will measure the distance in inches that my arse levitates from the cushion. At 1 inch or higher we will assume the null void and there is a God. The experiment will begin anytime you wish.
Michael
Ho: there are no Gods in existence.
Here is the experiment: Right now ask your God or Goddess or Gods or Goddesses, etc.. (whichever it is you believe in) to levitate me from my chair. I will measure the distance in inches that my arse levitates from the cushion. At 1 inch or higher we will assume the null void and there is a God. The experiment will begin anytime you wish.
Michael
We're soliciting donations now:
John Frumian
Haahahhaaa! Come on, is it just me or is this so funny?? 
here I have an idea;
you believe you have soul,right
and dead people have souls or are souls/spirits right...so why is it that your soul cant comunicate with those dead people,....or can you??
yeah there are people who PRETEND to do just that,like Sylvia Browne who promised to take james Randis million dollar chalenge but never did b/c he would explose her for exactly what she is ...a lying sack of shyt who goes around scamming people by COLD GUESSING about their loved ones who died.
Why is it so perpetually difficult for the theist to realize and accept that there is zero point in trying to argue the existence of a god (or anything at all) based on a few written records consisting of subjective accounts? It's purely faith they run on, and faith is synonomous with willful ignorance (i.e. stupidity).
Really. Look at what faith expects you to do, apply that same philosophy in any objective area of your life, and imagine how it would be viewed.
I have faith in my accountant. I will give him all of my money with no records of the transaction required.
I have faith in my realtors description of this 100 year old house. I will buy it sight-unseen, at full price.
Etc.
Really. Look at what faith expects you to do, apply that same philosophy in any objective area of your life, and imagine how it would be viewed.
I have faith in my accountant. I will give him all of my money with no records of the transaction required.
I have faith in my realtors description of this 100 year old house. I will buy it sight-unseen, at full price.
Etc.
The very foundation of religion - faith - which is the bold admission that there is no logic, reason, or compelling evidence behind their entire view of the cosmos, is an embarrassment to any self respecting human being. Or should be.
The problem with those experiments is that they do not measure how much doubt or faith the person doing the praying has within them. I declare that if (regardless of your belief in God) you imagine the feeling of any desire already occuring, then it would occur, ofcourse there are many other factors involved, but basically just what Jesus says:
"Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." (Mark 11:24)
This is just what the placebo-effect is, people believe that they're already healed by a placebo, and so they become so....how ironic that its just what Jesus had said before...
As for belief in a Supreme Being, God is unbiased, and equal to all...
How do you measure things like this? If I claim that I can communicate with other souls you would say its not true, and if I say I can't you would say see, its not true....just like with other claimants...
Thats not a good experiment, where does it say in any religion that if you ask God to do these things that it will happen, it is certainly possible for someone who like a God-man (like Jesus or Buddha, etc...), but for ordinary people it isn't.....
Seemed fair enough to me. Easy really. And I am sure your faith is larger than a mustard seed so it should be doubly easy!
But, really the onus is on the person who postulates the theory to prove their claim with results that can be duplicated in a replicable manner.
The fact is VitalOne there is no manner to prove a negative so their is no way for me or anyone to disprove Goddesses etc... But it certainly possible to prove something that is true. If God is true it should be able to prove itself quite easily. After all, in the Good Ole' days Gods used to flood the entire earth, smite Pharaohs, divide rivers and give birth to the Japanese islands. Well then, it should be a snap to levitate me - I'm on 79.5Kg!
Don't you agree?
Michael
Well for one, they sometimes have people who have committed their lives to their religion (such as monks or priests) do the praying. But this type of error is also reduced by one, having a large sample population and two, statistical analysis.
You’re over dramatizing the placebo effect. Only about 1/3 of the population experiences the effect and it is hardly a matter of believe and be cured but instead tends to be a moderation of symptoms.
Quite simply by testing the information the claimant is supposedly receiving. This has been done for about 150 years now, often with rewards offered for success. No one has been able to claim such a prize. James Randi started offering $1000 in 1964. The reward has grown to $1 million. Hundreds have applied but no one has even passed the preliminary tests.
~Raithere