which is more ignorant? believing there is a god or believing there is no possibility of one? (289)
emannigol: One fundamental flaw is to asume weight loss to be because of absent soul.
To be credible even the measuring of weight loss has to be repeated in different studies to eliminate possibilities of error and cheating.
To be credible even the measuring of weight loss has to be repeated in different studies to eliminate possibilities of error and cheating.
And there are other studies on this in progress. It's also been an observation in many hospitals.
druidess6308: And there are other studies on this in progress. It's also been an observation in many hospitals.
OK. It's still fundamental flaw to asume weight loss to be because of an absent soul.
If weight loss is real. Then reason for that have to be studied.
rodolpho: Gimme osama and we will split the difference
Oh sure,u r well come in afghanistan
I am a God...
The universe is a living being...
This western perception of God= so off
The universe is a living being...
This western perception of God= so off
emannigol: One fundamental flaw is to asume weight loss to be because of absent soul.
To be credible even the measuring of weight loss has to be repeated in different studies to eliminate possibilities of error and cheating.
To be credible even the measuring of weight loss has to be repeated in different studies to eliminate possibilities of error and cheating.
Wrong...you bend over to far for empirical science...
mrali: Dru,i am an educated person so i donot blieve in only myth,
it is absloute truth,i mentioned all the things clear,i think science is not strong or powerfull than the creation of God,also science is related wth the creation of God.
it is absloute truth,i mentioned all the things clear,i think science is not strong or powerfull than the creation of God,also science is related wth the creation of God.
Im sorry Mr Ali but an educated person makes themselves aware of both sides of the debate before commenting - as you are so proud of never having read a science book, I think there may well be doubt on your assertion of yourself as ;educated'
mrali: Oh sure,u r well come in afghanistan
I'm already there friend its my brigade walkin there...
airmobile brigade that is.
Writer1966: If there is no God then u and me don't exist. So did our fellow, Darwin.
???
Trealach: Athiests don't believe there is a God, and God doesn't believe there are athiests.
Find a War ..... then show me an Athiest!!
Find a War ..... then show me an Athiest!!
Indeed Sir, I think you may find a few here;
gemery: Agreedgeo
Postmodernism ?
we're welcome anywhere,but thats not the question.I know osama is in ur territory cos we combed all caves,so do u know where he is yes or no mr mrali,i can make u a bundle of cash
StressFree: I am a God...
The universe is a living being...
This western perception of God= so off
The universe is a living being...
This western perception of God= so off
I agree, SF. I am God, God is me...I am the Universe, the Universe is me...it's all connected, all One.
Mitakyue oyasin...all my relations.
crotalus_p: Do you have any evidence to back thoes statement's up ???
How about hundreds of posts. So many that people started complaining about my posting too much information. I have posted evidence upon evidence. And just as I would have guessed, you rejected all of it. Not based on the validity of the evidence, but based on the fact you did not agree with me.
Nice to see you Cro.
trish123: Im sorry Mr Ali but an educated person makes themselves aware of both sides of the debate before commenting - as you are so proud of never having read a science book, I think there may well be doubt on your assertion of yourself as ;educated'
Trish! I was wondering when you'd show up! I knew you wouldn't be able to resist this thread either. Hope all is well, g/f! 
crotalus_p: That sentence is so badly translated it makes no sense Yes and it has been proven ,
There is no such thing as a soul , if you disagree prove me wrong and show evidence of a soul That is flawed logic for a start I can show you the inventor and where the computer was made you can not show me god , the fact that man can make something is not a valid argument for the existence of a god It is to our determent to believe for a number of reason , maybe one time it was to our benefit but not now
There is no such thing as a soul , if you disagree prove me wrong and show evidence of a soul That is flawed logic for a start I can show you the inventor and where the computer was made you can not show me god , the fact that man can make something is not a valid argument for the existence of a god It is to our determent to believe for a number of reason , maybe one time it was to our benefit but not now
You can "show the inventor and where the computer was made?"
OK Cro, show me. I will wait right here.
MikeHD: How about hundreds of posts. So many that people started complaining about my posting too much information. I have posted evidence upon evidence. And just as I would have guessed, you rejected all of it. Not based on the validity of the evidence, but based on the fact you did not agree with me.
Nice to see you Cro.
Nice to see you Cro.
Evidence from faith and personal experience doesnt count, you know that Mike.........
Hello Mike
just to let you know that I do love you still 
pretzelman: My point..exactly. When one closes their mind to reason and thought...they become a rock..sand..a nothing! I believe in a Christian God...but will not say that my belief is right. It is right FOR ME. Don't try and force your belief that it is the ONLY way. Allah..is a choice...not a fact! Thought it may be a fact in some minds...it is not a fact.
Why would you follow a god who is nothing more than a choice?
I would much rather follow something that is a fact.
MikeHD: You can "show the inventor and where the computer was made?"
OK Cro, show me. I will wait right here.
OK Cro, show me. I will wait right here.
My dad developed computers ,he's one of the reasons we can communicate like this right now.the rest you'll have to make up yourselves.
MikeHD: You can "show the inventor and where the computer was made?"
OK Cro, show me. I will wait right here.
OK Cro, show me. I will wait right here.
The Turing Machine, 1948/9 Manchester England
MikeHD: How about hundreds of posts. So many that people started complaining about my posting too much information. I have posted evidence upon evidence. And just as I would have guessed, you rejected all of it. Not based on the validity of the evidence, but based on the fact you did not agree with me.
Nice to see you Cro.
Nope,actually we complained about the Flood of No Information!Nice to see you Cro.
hornswoggled: Which is more ignorant, assuming a person is guilty until proven innocent, or assuming that the accused is innocent until proven guilty?
"Guilty until proven innocent" is the same faulty logic as "god exists until disproven". Innocent until proven guilty is the same solid logic as "god" doesn't exist until proven. It's also the same logical process used in mathematics, science and technology. That computer you're reading this on would not exist if "true until proven false" were the basis of science.
If the religious had the honesty to admit that they can't prove their "god" exists, exactly how would that prevent them from believing in it? It wouldn't, and an honest person would admit that. The religious, however, and especially the rabidly religious, want a different burden of proof for their religion because they know they can't prove it. To admit that a "god" can't be proven in any testable and verifiable way would preclude any attempt to impose religion upon the law and society in general. Religion would become a strictly private matter, as it should be.
The agnostic view that "maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't" is fine when you're talking philosophy, semantics and sophistry, but in the real world, all propositions are either false or true. They cannot be both.
The null hypothesis of "false until proven true" doesn't make assertions without evidence, nor does it deny that something can't be true. All it does is place the burden of proof on those making the claim, that the onus is upon the claimant to produce the evidence. Only those who know their claim is empty and false would have a problem with that.
"Guilty until proven innocent" is the same faulty logic as "god exists until disproven". Innocent until proven guilty is the same solid logic as "god" doesn't exist until proven. It's also the same logical process used in mathematics, science and technology. That computer you're reading this on would not exist if "true until proven false" were the basis of science.
If the religious had the honesty to admit that they can't prove their "god" exists, exactly how would that prevent them from believing in it? It wouldn't, and an honest person would admit that. The religious, however, and especially the rabidly religious, want a different burden of proof for their religion because they know they can't prove it. To admit that a "god" can't be proven in any testable and verifiable way would preclude any attempt to impose religion upon the law and society in general. Religion would become a strictly private matter, as it should be.
The agnostic view that "maybe it's true, and maybe it isn't" is fine when you're talking philosophy, semantics and sophistry, but in the real world, all propositions are either false or true. They cannot be both.
The null hypothesis of "false until proven true" doesn't make assertions without evidence, nor does it deny that something can't be true. All it does is place the burden of proof on those making the claim, that the onus is upon the claimant to produce the evidence. Only those who know their claim is empty and false would have a problem with that.
Did you just say someone who murders someone is not guilty unless he is found to be guilty?
If he gets away with it, does that mean he is not a murderer?
rodolpho: Its more ignorant to believe there is no possibility of god cause science is still trying to prove it every day.And believing in god is just like believin in santaclaus or rudolph the rednose reindeer by the way,that can still be innocent and faith is a personal conviction.
Just a scientifical fact.
Just a scientifical fact.
Source?
MikeHD: Why would you follow a god who is nothing more than a choice?
I would much rather follow something that is a fact.
I would much rather follow something that is a fact.
Crotalus was right, HL never once mentioned empirical evidence in the post in question.......
The point here is empirically, that we, as none believers, arent making a claim so the onus isnt on us to prove a claim we aint making - we await the proof of your god - amen......
Trealach: Athiests don't believe there is a God, and God doesn't believe there are athiests.
Find a War ..... then show me an Athiest!!
Yep as in Thirty Year War 1618 to 1638.Find a War ..... then show me an Athiest!!
rodolpho: we're welcome anywhere,but thats not the question.I know osama is in ur territory cos we combed all caves,so do u know where he is yes or no mr mrali,i can make u a bundle of cash
So how much are we tallking abaut ??? trish123: Im sorry Mr Ali but an educated person makes themselves aware of both sides of the debate before commenting - as you are so proud of never having read a science book, I think there may well be doubt on your assertion of yourself as ;educated'
Education shows the right ways of life,unfortunatly there are alots who can not understand,i am satisfied and happy wth my thinking and sense
MikeHD: Source?
me
and i read a piece or two about it.Is that ok with you or dont you agree?
trish123: Evidence from faith and personal experience doesnt count, you know that Mike.........
Hello Mike just to let you know that I do love you still
Hello Mike just to let you know that I do love you still
Awww Trish123, I will always have a thing for you. I will always be your friend.
But my posts come from some of the formost scientist in human history. From many men and women with piled high & deep behind their names. (thats PhD for those who did not get it.)
If you like? I could start pasting some here.
No no, I like this thread. And turning everone against me again isn't much fun.
BOBANBOBAN: So how much are we tallking abaut ???
maybe its 10 million now but i dont wanna SPLIT too many ways
More Threads
Reality Check
What's going on
1830's Music
What I Lack In Vocabulary
How far is too far?
Icebergs Still Around
Nature
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
everything is changing
rarotonga
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
One fundamental flaw is to asume weight loss to be because of absent soul.
To be credible even the measuring of weight loss has to be repeated in different studies to eliminate possibilities of error and cheating.