German Drops Mayan Skull, Endangers Mankind

Off Topic
103

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You have stated that you have evidence to support your belief in God. The floor is yours.

106

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[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.”[/quote]

You’re missing the point. I din’t say that premise leads to a conclusion that God exists. The point is, if we don’t even understand those things, how can we expect to fully understand God? Our intelligence is minute compared to his.

My point was that you cannot definitively say that God does not exist.

107

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You have stated that you have evidence to support your belief in God. The floor is yours.
[/quote]

You have already stated that my evidence is not good enough for you.

108

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

You’re missing the point. I din’t say that premise leads to a conclusion that God exists. The point is, if we don’t even understand those things, how can we expect to fully understand God? Our intelligence is minute compared to his.

My point was that you cannot definitively say that God does not exist.[/quote]

And no one can say god definitely does exist, so everyone should be agnostic:
agnostic theist - as in they aren’t sure but they think there is a god

or an

agnostic atheist - as in they aren’t sure the they don’t think there is a god

For the record I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I can’t say with 100% certainty that there is no god, but science coupled with my life experiences leads me to think there is not one.

109

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[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.[/quote]

How can I dodge something when you don’t make yourself clear? I asked what subject you were referring to and you act like a little school girl with a crush wanting her girlfriends to guess her favorite beau.

110

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
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.[/quote]

No, transubstantiation doesn’t make sense to me and I’m a Catholic who believes in the True Presence. However, it is less nonsense because of the historical person Jesus Christ and all the stuff surrounding them man.

Further, I’m not so naive to believe that because I don’t have the ability to reason transubstantiation, it is not real. I base my thinking that this is true based on the authority of Jesus and his Church. I came to the conclusion, through reason that Jesus was who he said he was because he did what he was prophesied to do and therefore his promises are true. If it wasn’t for that I wouldn’t believe transubstantiation to be true.

The reason I don’t believe just because I don’t have the ability to reason something doesn’t make it not true is two fold: 1) I’m a realist, things are real whether we can reason them or perceive them, they are not based on our ability to reason or perceive. And, 2) I don’t have the ability to use my reason to prove quantum mechanics works. However, I still use the formulas to come to the right conclusions on my assignments.

111

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Couple of questions, you repeatedly say Grown Up, mentally healthy person.

Are you married?

Do you have children?

Do you believe in Love?

112

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

You’re missing the point. I din’t say that premise leads to a conclusion that God exists. The point is, if we don’t even understand those things, how can we expect to fully understand God? Our intelligence is minute compared to his.

My point was that you cannot definitively say that God does not exist.[/quote]

And no one can say god definitely does exist, so everyone should be agnostic:
agnostic theist - as in they aren’t sure but they think there is a god

or an

agnostic atheist - as in they aren’t sure the they don’t think there is a god

For the record I consider myself an agnostic atheist, I can’t say with 100% certainty that there is no god, but science coupled with my life experiences leads me to think there is not one.[/quote]

x2

113

Texas pro sports:

Spurs > Rangers > Mavericks > 'Boys > Texans > Stars

114

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Texas pro sports:

Spurs > Rangers > Mavericks > 'Boys > Texans > Stars

[/quote]

Spares should be placed after the Texans.

115

[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]

Imgur

This is relevant.

116

I don’t understand something about religious people, especially the very fanatics.

You believe in a God (depending on your religion) so you have :

-People who don’t believe and oppose the idea of a personified allmighty being.
-People who is undecided, and while they don’t follow any particular belief, they are not negative about their existance.
-People who worship a different god.

All these three groups are opposed to you, right?

So why don’t you find any evidence that your god(s) exist and crush all your opposition in a single blow? Why don’t you even TRY?

117

As for the original topic…a skull with magical powers that will prevent something that should have happened a few months already?

:David Silverman:

118

There is no reason to find evidence that god exists, people believe what they need to believe to cope with their own life and problems. Who the fuck are you to say its wrong or right.

Saying that shitt dosent exist or is impossible is ignorant and stupid, we humans dont know shitt about anything. People try way to hard to find a logic reason for everything.

119

Again, the leprechaun/butt unicorn/giant sun-spider example is your problem here. Your argument is that unless there is evidence that conclusively demonstrates that God does not exist, then it is not nonsensical to believe in him. The thing is that if you apply that rule of evidence uniformly, you reach absurd conclusions.

The earliest records of Leprechauns go back 2,000 years to the “Echtra Fergus mac Lacti”. Leprechauns have persisted in written stories ever since, and there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence of people seeing Leprechauns. They’ve even been seen in Alabama.

Is it a reasonable for me to take the position that “Unless you can provide me with evidence that Leprechauns (invisible, magical miniature men, making shoes and hoarding gold at the end of the rainbow) do not exist, then they exist”?

In what way is this different from the argument that unless I can disprove God, he exists and the belief is rational?

120

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:

[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.[/quote]

How can I dodge something when you don’t make yourself clear? I asked what subject you were referring to and you act like a little school girl with a crush wanting her girlfriends to guess her favorite beau. [/quote]
This is just silly.