DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So it's simply accepted then. OK.
Loving goodness of god's grace
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
Ummm no doubt many cancers are caused by modern lifestyle
However the word ' almost ' seems telling
Any info on
- which cancers were found in Egyptian mummies?
- which were not?
- work out (in both groups) which man made
- calculate a % in the 4 groups and let's get together such information before sweeping statements
What parts are not essential?
Then why as I get older my memory is being taken away?
Humpty and Poe a essential team
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html
Extract
There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.
What a Cowpat
There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease
So there goes sunshine and other background radiation
Extract
There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.
What a Cowpat
There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease
So there goes sunshine and other background radiation
You guys are just being delusional I think because there is actually no evidence that any God exists or has ever existed.
Everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, quantum mechanics, particle physics, astrophysics and physical cosmology makes the existence of God seem very very unlikely.
But the problem is that people want to believe what suits them regardless of the evidence.
Everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, quantum mechanics, particle physics, astrophysics and physical cosmology makes the existence of God seem very very unlikely.
But the problem is that people want to believe what suits them regardless of the evidence.
The problem is two fold
First it is more the lack of evidence
Secondly those who believe try to put the onus on the non believers to prove god does not exist
Since you cannot prove a negative the believers
- think that not being able to prove a negative that is the same as winning or
- at least a draw or
- they state they just know
It existed in one type of dinosaur.
Modern life is killing children with the number of youngsters diagnosed with cancer rising 40 per cent in the past 16 years because of air pollution, pesticides, poor diets and radiation, scientists have warned...
... New analysis of government statistics by researchers at the charity Children with Cancer UK found that there are now 1,300 more cancer cases a year compared with 1998, the first time all data sets were published.
The rise is most apparent in teenagers and young adults aged between 15 and 24, where the incident rate has risen from around 10 cases in 100,000 to nearly 16.
Researchers say that although some of the rise can be explained by improvements in cancer diagnoses and more screening, the majority is probably caused by environmental factors.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.te...in-young-people/amp/?client=ms-android-h3g-gb
Jan.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
I take it you're referring to theism?
What "evidence" are you referring to?
Jan.
Weird reply
I don't see anybody else around claiming it
I am me
I have been since I was born
Have you got some weird idea I am someone else?
And why is it we need to know who I am all of a sudden?
Have you a split personality or are you referring to others who post here?
Either way don't bother answering
My Cowpat detector went off a few posts back and I'm sure any
answer you give would make no sense and apart from setting the CPD off it may burn out the delicate circuits
Jaycar don't normally stock CPD SD cards (well not the ones we more than 16 Gig memory) so I have to make a special order and leave a deposit
All to much
Come on Humpty. Come on Poe
I'll buy you both icecream on the way home
Careful with the CPD Poe
Perhaps I should carry it
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
As you know, the likelihood of an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in Carl Sagan's garage gets lower the more we explore the area and study it.
As each possible hidey-place that the dragon could be gets eliminated (by better and better tools), the assertion that there is a dragon there at all, the story about how it's hiding has to keep getting pushed back. It becomes a back-peddling goalpost-moving scenario.
So it is with God. We continue to explore our universe, and find that it goes along tickety-boo without coming up against something that can only be explained by God. It becomes increasingly apparent that there are fewer and fewer places he has influence.
It's not that it says he's not there, simply that, so far, the universe seems to be revealing its secrets without resorting to him.
It is not unreasonable to project that we may end up with an alleged God that has no contact with - or influence on - nature at all.
But this has been explained many times.
No it isn't.
The essential part is you, the one who possesses the memory (my memory), in answer to your question.
But you are.
That means you memory belongs to you. Notice you don't claim you belong to you. That is because you would be talking nonsense.
I think you have.
To help you come to your senses.
Too late.
Jan.
Hmm... What does this have to do with anything?
I'll try to remember that when someone starts a 'Does a dragon live in Carl Sagan's garage' thread.
That's nothing like it is with God. That is an atheist comprehension of God. God is whatever you want God to be.
The universe has secrets?
You couldn't resort to God, because you are without Him, by definition. Unless you contour up a character and call him/her/it, God.
The sad thing is, you think because it is so for you, that is the standard for everyone.
Jan.
Weirder and weirder (with a nod to Lewis)
But I did in past post
Didn't think I needed to continue to claim it
Funny that
My memory belongs to me
What ever will they think of next?
Yes I did notice I didn't claim I belong to I
Can't have I posting nonsense like other posters
That would never do
But surely I am more than just my memory?
What about my
Don't they count along with my ribbed body with its oil glistening muscles?
No I'm pretty sure I am me
Didn't know my senses had left me
Where are they waiting for me?
Damn
There goes the Cowpat detector and I smell smoke
But I did in past post
Didn't think I needed to continue to claim it
Funny that
My memory belongs to me
What ever will they think of next?
Yes I did notice I didn't claim I belong to I
Can't have I posting nonsense like other posters
That would never do
But surely I am more than just my memory?
What about my
- Pleasing personality
- Rugged hansom looks
- Devil may care attitude
- Winning smile
Don't they count along with my ribbed body with its oil glistening muscles?
No I'm pretty sure I am me
Didn't know my senses had left me
Where are they waiting for me?
Damn
There goes the Cowpat detector and I smell smoke
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You know perfectly well about the argument of Sagan's dragon and its comparison to the existence of God.
Since your best response is to feign ignorance, that speaks to the likelihood that you have no better counter.
Just did.
A non-response. Whether you agree with it or not, you know perfectly well its use as a correlation with this topic.
This is a non sequitur. I simply pointed out that we are finding more and more about our world, and that it appears to work very well with perfectly mundane mechanisms, without resorting to a supernatural one.
This is an ad hominem in the sense that it entirely neglects the topic at-hand, and instead attempts to attack the views of the person making the argument.
(One could just as easily make a trivial counter: you have to resort to God, because you can't not believe he exists. See why ad homs are useless? Don't use em. They're arguments in bad faith.)
Your entire post has been a dodge.
- a feigned ignorance,
- non-response
- a non sequitur
- an ad hom.
- and nothing that qualifies as a debatable argument.
You're no fool; you can do better than this.
Do you have anything to counter the stance that our world is being effectively explained without yet needing to resort to God to explain it?
Yes, and I'm asking how it relates to God.
Just because it is used all the time, doesn't mean it is beyond scrutiny. So how does it relate to God, because from my perspective, it doesn't.
Just did.
A non-response. Whether you agree with it or not, you know perfectly well its use as a correlation with this topic
I honestly do not know how that relates to God. What I do know is that atheists use it to make a point, from their own perspective. But I don't know what it is they think they know about God, to use that as a defence.
I accept that as an atheist perspective, but from my perspective, it doesn't address anything. Other than we can't see God, so God doesn't exist
Oh please! Look at the title. You're not going to allow this to continue along it's path. Your first response was to chastise the op, accusing the composer of evangelising, or something similar. So please refrain from such accusations.
Can you explain what that has to do with God?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Agree. It isn't about God; it's about those who espouse God. As Sagan's invisible dragon is not about invisible dragons. It is about people who espouse things that cannot be shown to exist outside their own heads.
Sagan's dragon lays bare the diversionary tactic of shifting the goalposts whenever there is any attempt to rationally objectively analyze something (whether faith in invisible dragons or faith in God).
Often the first goalpost is to say (let me know if this sounds familiar) "well, first you'll have to define God".
Look at this:
Sagan: "There's an invisible dragon in my garage."
Rationalist: "I see nothing. I am skeptical it exists. Show me."
Sagan: "It's there, you just can't detect it."
Rationalist: "Then tell me what test I can do to detect it."
Sagan: "You know nothing about invisible dragons. You can't even talk about them unless you can define them."
Rationalist: "It's your dragon; your assertion. I don't claim to know anything about it. Why don't you tell me how I can identify it?"
Sagan: "No that's your problem, because you don't believe in dragons. You'll just have to live with my advanced evolution."
As much as they know about Sagan's invisible dragon. Which need be nothing, to start.
Rationalist: "What test can I perform that will distinguish your assertion of a dragon from you, say, hallucinating this dragon?"
Sagan: "Well, I can see it. It's not my problem if you can't."
Rationalist: "So, no. There is no way you - or I - can distinguish this from an hallucination, except that you know it in your heart..."
See how preposterous that whole exchange sounds?
Last edited:
Unless you are equating God with invisible dragons, how does it relate to theism, or God.
If a whole section of people could see that invisible dragon, and some couldn't then you'd be on to something. Because that is the reality.
You could however perform the experiment with compassion. There are those for whom compassion (unconditional love) is a natural attribute. But for others it isn't.
I can see how this would make sense to you. The truth of the matter is, it's a concoction to justify the atheist position.
" I can't see God, therefore God does not exist. That's what it means to be without God.
"Nothing" being the star of that little show.
Yes you do sound preposterous.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
As explained, it relates God believers to dragon believers. They use the same diversionary tactics.
That would be argument by popularity. A whole section of people believe in Sasquatch too. It's not a vote.
There are a lot of people from whom compassion and unconditional love come from their own heart and character, rather than from some other entity. You don't want to go down that road.
And I can see how faith in God would make sense to you.
I have faith in God therefore God exists. That's what it means to be with God.
Note, that there is nothing objective in there. It is self-referencing.
Exactly. If you wish to assert the existence of God, the onus in on you to put your stance on the table.
You can't hide behind 'you don't know'.
Let's put me in that seat:
Me: I assert the existence of "crystaline entities".
You: And what is it about them you are asserting?
Me: None of your business. You don't get them so you can't argue them.
You: Why don't you tell us. Surely there is logic here.
Me: No. You know nothing. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Finally!
I parroted your logic for a belief in - and explanation of - God using a simpler analogy, and even you have come to realize that the logic is preposterous.
I don't. I totally agree that God does not exist as far as you're concerned. See, we're both in agreement. So for you there is no 'Loving Goodness of God' s grace.
Yet here you are.
It would mean that there would some similarity between it and theism. As it stands the invisible dragon gig is unrelated in a very real sense.
I'm talking about the natural inclination which humans possess. Plus I don't mind going down that road, thank you very much. We can understand a lot from that.
How would it make sense to me?
Who said anything about being with God? That's not what theist means.
God is, and I believe in Him.
That's basically what it means. I don't require faith to believe in God. What makes you think I do?
Your own self, guessing what theists require.
Why? You admit you know nothing of God, then act as though you know something when discussion starts.
You're better off in your zone of I can't see God, therefore God doesn't exist. Because every time we discuss God, that's what it boils down to, with you.
Crystaline entities (whatever they are) and God are two different subject matters Dave. This is why it is kind of pointless discussing God with you. Because He doesn't exist to you, and you assign any old thing, thinking it relates to God, or theist.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because you keep saying...
Which is an act of faith. If it weren't, you'd be able to present evidence to the rest of us who are not privy to what drives your beliefs.
It keeps coming back to this, but you never address it. You drag out your mantra 'God is for me, and not for you.' In other words, you are admitting it is a subjective experience, not unlike a dream, or an itch.