Evolution Thoery

[QUOTE="Severed_Hand"]

[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]Okay let me ask you this without the help of God, how did life start? Life comes from life. Sponatnous generation is a midevil belief that has no place in schools.killtactics

Theory of Abiogenesis. Question answered.

As far as the study of evolution is concerned, what happened before life arose is secondary. Biological evolution is concerned with what happened to life after it appeared. It's indisputable that since life appeared on earth, evolution has taken place, and us humans are part of that evolutionary history.

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Severed_Hand"]

[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]Okay let me ask you this without the help of God, how did life start? Life comes from life. Sponatnous generation is a midevil belief that has no place in schools.killtactics

Theory of Abiogenesis. Question answered.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Severed_Hand"]

[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]Okay let me ask you this without the help of God, how did life start? Life comes from life. Sponatnous generation is a midevil belief that has no place in schools.Decessus

Theory of Abiogenesis. Question answered.

As far as the study of evolution is concerned, what happened before life arose is secondary. Biological evolution is concerned with what happened to life after it appeared. It's indisputable that since life appeared on earth, evolution has taken place, and us humans are part of that evolutionary history.

[QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Severed_Hand"]

[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]Okay let me ask you this without the help of God, how did life start? Life comes from life. Sponatnous generation is a midevil belief that has no place in schools.353535355353535

Theory of Abiogenesis. Question answered.

I do. Monkeys act stupid and human begins act stupid --- seems rather logical to me.

i dont disagree with u at all....i was just asking that guy...killtactics

Fair enough. 8)

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="killtactics"][QUOTE="Severed_Hand"]

[QUOTE="Slepanandiaz"]Okay let me ask you this without the help of God, how did life start? Life comes from life. Sponatnous generation is a midevil belief that has no place in schools.killtactics

Theory of Abiogenesis. Question answered.

Lol were u live? cuz they dont teach evolution in my school in so calMuffinsKill

If true, that's frightening.

If I remember correctly, Adam was made from dirt and Eva from one of his ribs, so it wasn't from thin air aither :)Gog

Ah, dirt. A much more reasonable origin.

[QUOTE="Gog"]If I remember correctly, Adam was made from dirt and Eva from one of his ribs, so it wasn't from thin air aither :)Gamer556

Ah, dirt. A much more reasonable origin.

You're right, clearly natural biological processes have been triumphed by a God that makes people out of dirt and ribs!

[QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

Silver_Dragon17

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

Gamer556

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

[QUOTE="Gamer556"]

[QUOTE="Gog"]If I remember correctly, Adam was made from dirt and Eva from one of his ribs, so it wasn't from thin air aither :)TongHua

Ah, dirt. A much more reasonable origin.

You're right, clearly natural biological processes have been triumphed by a God that makes people out of dirt and ribs!

The BIG invisible man! In the sky! Who sees everything you do!

[QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

jodamn

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

[QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

353535355353535

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

It's a mind exercise. The idea is that the teapot is undetectably small. If it's easier to think about, you can replace it with any iidea/object that isn't capable of being observed, or proven/disproven...

[QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

353535355353535

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

borris_1

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

[QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

353535355353535

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

Prove it

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

borris_1

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

Prove it

[QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

353535355353535

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

Prove it

What about invisible matter?

Pray tell, what is god made of?

[QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

353535355353535

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

No, it can't be disproven. That must make it true, correct?

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

Gamer556

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

No, it can't be disproven. That must make it true, correct?

It pains me to think someone will reply with "correct" :(

Yes...that is the theory though as of now they still have no transistional ancestor and no it wasn't neanderthals.

LJS9502_basic

uhhhhh, there have been many transitional fossil discoveries. For this specific "case", perhaps not, but transitional fossils are extremely abundant.

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

borris_1

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

Prove it

What about invisible matter?

Pray tell, what is god made of?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Yes...that is the theory though as of now they still have no transistional ancestor and no it wasn't neanderthals.

Donkey_Puncher

uhhhhh, there have been many transitional fossil discoveries. For this specific "case", perhaps not, but transitional fossils are extremely abundant.

[QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

353535355353535

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

Prove it

What about invisible matter?

Pray tell, what is god made of?

Is air visible?

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="borris_1"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="Gamer556"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Stealth-Gunner"]Nope we sure can't because whenever we have something that makes god's existence not make sense you can just say something like "God was always there" or "God can do anything".

God's existence is just like the teapot rotating around the earth like diz360 said, can't be proven or disproven but just as silly.

JakeArmstrong

So God, whop created time and space, would have to live inside of time and be bound by it? That doesn't make any sense.:|

And the teapot analogy is a crappy one. We know that a teapot floating around the sun is ridiculous, and that it simply won't happen, just like Santa Clause and Unicorns. But God is something that is not only possible, but probable; God makes far more sense than a teapot orbiting the sun.;)

But why? Why is God any more probable than Santa Clause, unicorns,or an orbiting teapot? God's existence is just as ridiculous as any of those things.

Right on, Gamer. Silverdragon, the teapot analogy is appropriate because it's random, arbitrary and, according to the analogy, the existence of the teapot cannot be proven or disproven. Religion, as well, makes arbitrary unverifible claims and insists that the burden of proof be on the cynic - if you can't DISPROVE god, of course he exists.

edit: ... and that's just silly.

Maybe it's an invisible teapot!

Prove it

What about invisible matter?

Pray tell, what is god made of?

Is air visible?

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

jodamn

[QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

353535355353535

... therefore god exists. :D

No, really, do you understand what I'm saying here? If it helps, you can pick your own unprovable speculation.

You're being rather literal to insist that, say, unicorns can be 'disproven' any more than god can. The existence of unicorns can be disproven... painstakingly ... on earth. We would do this by examining every possible place a unicorn could be, and establishing that a unicorn is not there. No matter how much we look, though, we can only be sure that there are no unicorns where we've looked. That doesn't mean there isn't a unicorn planet somewhere 10,000 light years away. The idea of something being unverifiable means that no amount of testing will ever confirm beyond any doubt that it does/doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

jodamn

... therefore god exists. :D

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

jodamn

I cant believe some people think that we come from monkeys! It's absolutely ridiculus! How can they teach this thoery (which is a thoery is a guess) in schools? Who agrees with me it should not be taught?

EDIT: Bad spelling

Slepanandiaz

[QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

espoac

Right, and there aren't millions of people who worship teapots, which is why it's just an analogy. Let's take another one: god is female. I believe this because I've been taught it from holy books, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Thus, I believe god is female.

[QUOTE="espoac"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

jodamn

Right, and there aren't millions of people who worship teapots, which is why it's just an analogy. Let's take another one: god is female. I believe this because I've been taught it from holy books, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Thus, I believe god is female.

[QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

353535355353535

... therefore god exists. :D

It shouldn't be that offensive. You're saying that you believe in something with no proof, but others who believe other things, also with no proof, are dumb. How do you choose which combination of unverifiable facts to believe?

edit: and I am sorry if I did offend you. I don't actually mean harm. :D

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

jodamn

... therefore god exists. :D

It shouldn't be that offensive. You're saying that you believe in something with no proof, but others who believe other things, also with no proof, are dumb. How do you choose which combination of unverifiable facts to believe?

Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause and orbital teapots :lol:

Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause and orbital teapots :lol:

trust_nobody

is there a reason to believe that there is a santa claus or orbital teapots?

[QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

353535355353535

... therefore god exists. :D

It shouldn't be that offensive. You're saying that you believe in something with no proof, but others who believe other things, also with no proof, are dumb. How do you choose which combination of unverifiable facts to believe?

Because it makes you feel better about life, I suppose. Isn't the reason for believing in religion?

[QUOTE="trust_nobody"]

Believing in God is like believing in Santa Clause and orbital teapots :lol:

353535355353535

is there a reason to believe that there is a santa claus or orbital teapots?

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

jodamn

... therefore god exists. :D

It shouldn't be that offensive. You're saying that you believe in something with no proof, but others who believe other things, also with no proof, are dumb. How do you choose which combination of unverifiable facts to believe?

Because it makes you feel better about life, I suppose. Isn't the reason for believing in religion?

[QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

jodamn

... therefore god exists. :D

It shouldn't be that offensive. You're saying that you believe in something with no proof, but others who believe other things, also with no proof, are dumb. How do you choose which combination of unverifiable facts to believe?

Because it makes you feel better about life, I suppose. Isn't the reason for believing in religion?

[QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

trust_nobody

... therefore god exists. :D

It shouldn't be that offensive. You're saying that you believe in something with no proof, but others who believe other things, also with no proof, are dumb. How do you choose which combination of unverifiable facts to believe?

Because it makes you feel better about life, I suppose. Isn't the reason for believing in religion?

See, that actually makes a lot of sense. :)

Absolutely, yes. Believing in God is more uplifting than anything else, and I for one would much rather go through life with this belief than crossing my arms and saying "I can't see it so it's not there! :cry:"

See, that actually makes a lot of sense. :)

jodamn

No way - In some countries. religion is enforced. Most conflict today is based on religious rivalry and hatred. I can think of plenty more uplifting things than the believing in god fallacy. I would much rather go through life beliving in things that were actually true than placing my faith in some really old book that has had most of its meanings interpreted through translation and skewed to fit in with doctines of the day. The bits that don't fit in the bible's new testament have been ommitted from it!

The old testament/khoran preaches a vengeful and hateful god. Surely this is cold comfort. There is plenty of evidence to tell me there is no god. What about the centuries of destruction, the famines and natural disasters that affect innocents, the injustices in the world at the moment and the variety of other religions, including pre-chitistian ones.

[QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"][QUOTE="353535355353535"][QUOTE="jodamn"]

I think this may be devolving into something kinda silly.

The whole point of the analogy is that ANYTHING can be speculated to exist (unicorns, coral reef, global warming, orbital teapots, one god, many gods, etc), but when the speculation is unverifiable, the -burden of proof- shouldn't be placed on the skeptics to DISPROVE it.

trust_nobody

... therefore god exists. :D

It shouldn't be that offensive. You're saying that you believe in something with no proof, but others who believe other things, also with no proof, are dumb. How do you choose which combination of unverifiable facts to believe?

Because it makes you feel better about life, I suppose. Isn't the reason for believing in religion?

So, in the aftermath of a nuclear war, if you have to somehow give yourself medical care, you would rather pray to God and ask him to do it, than just getting on with it and doing it yourself?

Why is there evil in the world? Because God gave us free will? But doesn't God know everything? As such, if he knows I will do something, I don't have free will. Contradiction 1.

If God is all powerful, powerful enough to create life, can he create a stone he cannot lift? If he can create the stone, he's not all powerful, because he can't lift it. Conversely, if he can't create the stone, he, again, is not all powerful. Contradiction 2.

Let us ignore contradiction 1 and assume God knows everything. If this is so, he is not 'perfect good'. If he knows man is going to commit a sit, but does not stop it, he "has the capacity for evil himself", and therefore, is not perfect good. Contradiction 3.

I love the bible :)

Evolution theory fails. I think it's ridiculous to believe that just because we look similar to another species that we must have came from an ancestor of them. There is no solid proof, only theory and opinion behind this claim.

Whilst it is plausible, I want some charts, graphs or something which proves so.