German Drops Mayan Skull, Endangers Mankind

Off Topic
81

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on what they claimed they witnessed, where they were and their credibility as well as a host of other factors.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

82

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…

83

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?

84

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
Can you substitute Jesus for Elvis and make a distinction?[/quote]

What are you asking?[/quote]
Exactly what I asked.[/quote]

Ok, can you make your question clearer?[/quote]
Not really. It’s pretty cut and dry.[/quote]

Okay, what situation are we substituting Jesus for Elvis?[/quote]
You are not making a good case for reasonable intelligence.[/quote]

Because I don’t know what you’re asking about when you don’t place the subject of our discussion in your question?[/quote]
You may have one guess.

85

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)

86

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)[/quote]

That goes back to the credibility issue.

Try one more time. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “n” and ends in “o”.

87

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)[/quote]

That goes back to the credibility issue.

Try one more time. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “n” and ends in “o”.[/quote]

Where are you going with this anyway? Did you witness God?

88

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Eye witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence. Ask any scientist. What happens in a court of law is not the standard by which we judge reality outside of that particular case. If it was, we wouldn’t use the scientific method to determine which medicine works, or which is the best type of rocket, we would just have the two sides argue it out and let a group of people pick the winner. Thankfully we don’t use that system for things like surgical procedures. If you wish to suggest that eye witness testimony is a credible form of evidence, you’ve got lots of work ahead of you: bigfoot, ufo’s, loch ness monster, mothman, alien abductions, etc.

89

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)[/quote]

That goes back to the credibility issue.

Try one more time. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “n” and ends in “o”.[/quote]

Of course you are correct. The fact that one person sees something, but nobody else sees it does not mean it didn’t happen. However, this is in no way relevant to the current discussion. Larger, more amazing claims require more evidence. If someone says, “I saw a blue car drive by,” I’m going to say OK. Not a very big claim, not very significant, so no big deal. If someone says, “There is an almighty, all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe,” he/she better have some serious evidence to back it up. “Because I saw him” or “Because it makes me feel good to believe it” or “I just know it” isn’t good enough.

90

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
You may have one guess.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not going to guess. I’ve been patient in an attempt to understand you better and answer your question. And, all I asked for was a clarification of what you were asking about. If you don’t want to do that, that is fine.

91

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
You may have one guess.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not going to guess. I’ve been patient in an attempt to understand you better and answer your question. And, all I asked for was a clarification of what you were asking about. If you don’t want to do that, that is fine. [/quote]
A very nice dodge.

92

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I just dont see why atheists feel the need to force us not to believe or to prove us wrong. Its like they are trying to make us not believe will make them feel better about their own lack of believe in something?

I dont shout at atheists like a crazy homeless person trying to make them find religion. I dont really care what they believe. [/quote]

This is a common misconception that I would like to clear up. The post will be a bit lengthy, but here goes…

I don’t give two shits what you believe. You can believe whatever batshit crazy stuff you want. If you want to, you can believe that while you are sleeping a unicorn climbs out of your butt and checks your alarm clock for you. You can believe that if you would like, but there are some things you need to know…

1.) Don’t you dare try to get your butt unicorn ideas into my science classrooms.
2.) Don’t knock on my door to tell me about your butt unicorn.
3.) Don’t think that you and your butt unicorn buddies are entitled to tax breaks and special treatment under the law.
4.) Don’t speak to me telling me that I am immoral, amoral, evil, or going to suffer because I do not share your butt unicorn beliefs.

And here is the big one…

5.) If you publicly proclaim your butt unicorn beliefs you will face judgement and ridicule because it is not OK for grown up, mentally healthy people to believe in butt unicorns, magic underwear, talking snakes, magical golden plates, that cutting the skin off of a boy’s penis marks him chosen by the butt unicorn, that your emperor is a supernatural being, that you get 72 virgins (or raisins, depending on who you ask) for killing people that don’t believe in your butt unicorn, magical crackers, or anything else that falls into the butt unicorn category.

I am not out to convert anyone. I’m not under the impression that anyone will change their beliefs because of what I say. Calling out nonsense and bad ideas is something that should be done and so I am doing it.
[/quote]

Again, have you considered that what you feel is a lie?[/quote]

The irony of you playing “Devil’s advocate” given the context of all this witty banter is REALLY amusing to me.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]Swolegasm wrote:
I just dont see why atheists feel the need to force us not to believe or to prove us wrong. Its like they are trying to make us not believe will make them feel better about their own lack of believe in something?

I dont shout at atheists like a crazy homeless person trying to make them find religion. I dont really care what they believe. [/quote]

This is a common misconception that I would like to clear up. The post will be a bit lengthy, but here goes…

I don’t give two shits what you believe. You can believe whatever batshit crazy stuff you want. If you want to, you can believe that while you are sleeping a unicorn climbs out of your butt and checks your alarm clock for you. You can believe that if you would like, but there are some things you need to know…

1.) Don’t you dare try to get your butt unicorn ideas into my science classrooms.
2.) Don’t knock on my door to tell me about your butt unicorn.
3.) Don’t think that you and your butt unicorn buddies are entitled to tax breaks and special treatment under the law.
4.) Don’t speak to me telling me that I am immoral, amoral, evil, or going to suffer because I do not share your butt unicorn beliefs.

And here is the big one…

5.) If you publicly proclaim your butt unicorn beliefs you will face judgement and ridicule because it is not OK for grown up, mentally healthy people to believe in butt unicorns, magic underwear, talking snakes, magical golden plates, that cutting the skin off of a boy’s penis marks him chosen by the butt unicorn, that your emperor is a supernatural being, that you get 72 virgins (or raisins, depending on who you ask) for killing people that don’t believe in your butt unicorn, magical crackers, or anything else that falls into the butt unicorn category.

I am not out to convert anyone. I’m not under the impression that anyone will change their beliefs because of what I say. Calling out nonsense and bad ideas is something that should be done and so I am doing it.
[/quote]

Again, have you considered that what you feel is a lie?[/quote]

It has nothing to do with what I feel. If I hold a pencil straight out in front of me and let it go everyone knows it will fall toward the Earth and not float up to the sky. We know this because of evidence and understanding. How we feel about it is irrelevant. If a grown up, mentally healthy person says, “You know, I’m going to go ahead and say it will float up to the sky,” he is full of shit and we all know it.

We have to stop pretending that we don’t have an amazingly wonderful understanding of how the universe works. Is our understanding complete and perfect? Of course not, but it is way better than it was hundreds/thousands of years ago when these fairy tails were written. We have to stop pretending there aren’t such things as bad ideas and nonsense.

94

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)[/quote]

That goes back to the credibility issue.

Try one more time. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “n” and ends in “o”.[/quote]

Of course you are correct. The fact that one person sees something, but nobody else sees it does not mean it didn’t happen. However, this is in no way relevant to the current discussion. Larger, more amazing claims require more evidence. If someone says, “I saw a blue car drive by,” I’m going to say OK. Not a very big claim, not very significant, so no big deal. If someone says, “There is an almighty, all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe,” he/she better have some serious evidence to back it up. “Because I saw him” or “Because it makes me feel good to believe it” or “I just know it” isn’t good enough.[/quote]

It’s not good enough for YOU. And that’s the point. I can’t prove to you that God exists. But you can’t prove that God does not exist. You can merely state your opinion based on the evidence. If you draw the conclusion that God does not exist so be it.

95

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
You may have one guess.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not going to guess. I’ve been patient in an attempt to understand you better and answer your question. And, all I asked for was a clarification of what you were asking about. If you don’t want to do that, that is fine. [/quote]

Earlier I made a statement that went something like this…

“If I say I believe that speaking Latin words over my pancakes turns them in to the body of Elvis I will rightfully face some judgement and ridicule. However, if someone believes the exact same thing about some crackers and the body of Jesus they are Catholic and we should respect their beliefs? No. Nonsense is nonsense.”

Is is asking you to substitute “Jesus” for “Elvis” in the pancake example and tell him how it makes it any less nonsense. It is equally nonsensical if it is Elivs and pancakes or Jesus and crackers, or any other combination.

96

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
We have to stop pretending that we don’t have an amazingly wonderful understanding of how the universe works. Is our understanding complete and perfect? Of course not, but it is way better than it was hundreds/thousands of years ago when these fairy tails were written. We have to stop pretending there aren’t such things as bad ideas and nonsense.
[/quote]

We really don’t know that much about the universe when you consider how vast it is. Hell, we don’t even know much about the deepest parts of the oceans on the earth.

97

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

It’s not good enough for YOU. And that’s the point. I can’t prove to you that God exists. But you can’t prove that God does not exist. You can merely state your opinion based on the evidence. If you draw the conclusion that God does not exist so be it. [/quote]

If it’s good enough for you then you have a ridiculously low standard of evidence great claims. You are liable to believe any non-sense.

98

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)[/quote]

That goes back to the credibility issue.

Try one more time. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “n” and ends in “o”.[/quote]

Of course you are correct. The fact that one person sees something, but nobody else sees it does not mean it didn’t happen. However, this is in no way relevant to the current discussion. Larger, more amazing claims require more evidence. If someone says, “I saw a blue car drive by,” I’m going to say OK. Not a very big claim, not very significant, so no big deal. If someone says, “There is an almighty, all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe,” he/she better have some serious evidence to back it up. “Because I saw him” or “Because it makes me feel good to believe it” or “I just know it” isn’t good enough.[/quote]

It’s not good enough for YOU. And that’s the point. I can’t prove to you that God exists. But you can’t prove that God does not exist. You can merely state your opinion based on the evidence. If you draw the conclusion that God does not exist so be it. [/quote]

If we are going to be grown ups we have to stop with the “for you” and “in your opinion” stuff. Its not that you can’t prove that a god exists to ME, its that you have no evidence for any god’s existence at all. Of course I can’t prove a god does not exist, it isn’t possible to prove something doesn’t exist. You can’t prove that leprechauns don’t exist, that doesn’t mean we should believe they do. What would you say if I took your exact words and replaced “God” with “leprechaun.”? Lets try it…

It’s not good enough for YOU. And that’s the point. I can’t prove to you that leprechauns exist. But you can’t prove that leprechauns do not exist. You can merely state your opinion based on the evidence. If you draw the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist so be it.

Sounds a little juvenile doesn’t it?

99

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
We have to stop pretending that we don’t have an amazingly wonderful understanding of how the universe works. Is our understanding complete and perfect? Of course not, but it is way better than it was hundreds/thousands of years ago when these fairy tails were written. We have to stop pretending there aren’t such things as bad ideas and nonsense.
[/quote]

We really don’t know that much about the universe when you consider how vast it is. Hell, we don’t even know much about the deepest parts of the oceans on the earth.[/quote]

There are physicists, biologists, cosmologists, geologists, oceanographers, astronomers, engineers, and a whole host of other people that may disagree with you.

However, for the sake of argument I will grant your premise that, “We really don’t know that much about the universe when you consider how vast it is. Hell, we don’t even know much about the deepest parts of the oceans on the earth.”

So what? My statement that our understanding, “is way better than it was hundreds/thousands of years ago when these fairy tails were written,” still stands. This line of reasoning has nothing to do with grown up mentally healthy people believing things for which there is no evidence. The fact that we don’t have a complete understanding of what is going on at the bottom of our oceans doesn’t lead to “there is a god.”

100

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)[/quote]

That goes back to the credibility issue.

Try one more time. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “n” and ends in “o”.[/quote]

Of course you are correct. The fact that one person sees something, but nobody else sees it does not mean it didn’t happen. However, this is in no way relevant to the current discussion. Larger, more amazing claims require more evidence. If someone says, “I saw a blue car drive by,” I’m going to say OK. Not a very big claim, not very significant, so no big deal. If someone says, “There is an almighty, all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe,” he/she better have some serious evidence to back it up. “Because I saw him” or “Because it makes me feel good to believe it” or “I just know it” isn’t good enough.[/quote]

It’s not good enough for YOU. And that’s the point. I can’t prove to you that God exists. But you can’t prove that God does not exist. You can merely state your opinion based on the evidence. If you draw the conclusion that God does not exist so be it. [/quote]

If we are going to be grown ups we have to stop with the “for you” and “in your opinion” stuff. Its not that you can’t prove that a god exists to ME, its that you have no evidence for any god’s existence at all. Of course I can’t prove a god does not exist, it isn’t possible to prove something doesn’t exist. You can’t prove that leprechauns don’t exist, that doesn’t mean we should believe they do. What would you say if I took your exact words and replaced “God” with “leprechaun.”? Lets try it…

It’s not good enough for YOU. And that’s the point. I can’t prove to you that leprechauns exist. But you can’t prove that leprechauns do not exist. You can merely state your opinion based on the evidence. If you draw the conclusion that leprechauns do not exist so be it.

Sounds a little juvenile doesn’t it?[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. I have never encountered any evidence that leprechauns exist, therefore I don’t believe they exist. The same cannot be said for my belief in God.