It is God who gave man music and instruments in first place to worship him. All music therefore originates from God. it is not man invention by the way. Moloch destiny is fire and brimstone. So don't follow a looser, it is not profitable at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7EZONzP4iESo God created man to worship Him? How much praise does one need? That part never made any sense to me... If I was a God, I might be interested in companionship... ya know, another dude to tell my stories... but worship? from a bunch of ants? why? Must be something in the water during bronze age. He created his Son who is him, sent him to Earth to die on the cross so that he can forgive sins of ants. He had to die himself to forgive sins of some schmucks on 3rd rock from the Sun. Hey, God, you could have just forgave the sins. Why bother with all the theatrical dying on the cross. You created the fucking universe, you could not forgive the sins of some insignificant bronze age schmucks?The guy who first wrote this story was tripping on Meth. You'd think God would be smart enough to send Jesus during the 20th century... so we could record that shit on video... I'd seriously consider any physical evidence for Jesus being historical... even a sandal with Jesus' name written on it from the year 20 CE... maybe a chair or table? Wasn't Jesus a carpenter? What did he make? Why is there zero evidence that Jesus ever existed? It was on purpose. Because you don't need proof. You need Faith. Proof would destroy Faith. Which is a big NO NO. What's the difference between faith and delusion? cause and effect. But check with BSDecker, he is a guru on causes and effects. Nope. BADecker isn't a guru on cause and effect. BADecker simply knows that Newton's 3rd Law substantiates cause and effect in everything. God exists, and the science He created proves it.  |
|
|
|
Penn Jillette is legit... prove he lied
I never said he lied. I said you believe him on faith. But you're the one making a claim, so the burden is on you to prove it. What you're asking is impossible: to prove that someone's drinking doesn't exist. You say you don't believe that Mormons abstain; I just believe in one teetotaller fewer than you believe in. or stop with all the bullshit slander Could you please quote one thing I've said that could in any way be interpreted as slander? You posted a single quote, and I presented a logical refutation of that statement. Now you're freaking out because someone doesn't agree with everything you say. Stop trying to force your morality and worldview on everyone else. Don't take it so defensively. Both Moloch and organofcorti are a couple of deceptive, political science trolls, who blabber on just to cover up the posts of people who make sense. |
|
|
|
Not any of these links you posted are mine, so your claims about so called "my scam" are obsolete.<snip>
Obsolete? So you admit that you were previously a scammer? Maybe he was a scammer. But you show by your posts that you are nothing less than a deceptive, lying troll. |
|
|
|
Hey! Some poison is good for you. Coffee has at least 119 toxins in it... in tiny amounts. But they cause your immune system to activate, so that you fight off a host of other things as well. The poison in the coffee isn't enough, itself, to hurt you... unless you drink just tons of it. Atheism is different. It sends the atheist to eternal damnation, eternal death by eternal dying, in pain and agony. and the greatest agony of it is the absence of God. |
|
|
|
After long and secular debates about atheism, the need for a separate topic about God's existence has arisen.
There are amongst us a group of people who believe that while there is no proof that God exists, there also is no proof that He doesn't exist.
Please share your argument in a logical manner and abstain from saying things like "I'm right because I'm right".
I know that this, in the end, is a philosophical discussion so only logical are welcome.
he exist, it's a mater of faith . and the bible is the proof weather anyone wants to expect it or believe it, that's on them . only a fool says there is a no god that simple !! . Is there a single Christian that uses spellcheck? How hard is it? It looks bad when you misspell or misuse multiple words every sentence You can't show that God doesn't exist. You can't show anything against the proof that He exists. So you pick on someone's spelling. LOL |
|
|
|
If god did exist and created the universe how would we have the perspective to know this anyway since we are made up of the same matter as the universe. You either believe or you dont, maybe for those who believe god exists then its true, maybe for those who dont its not true. Perhaps the universe is capable of acting out a contradiction like that.
Exactly, the only thing to do is to be an agnostic. That's the only way decent people can act  Still better than saying that a super-entity lives in the sky. God pervades the whole universe, and lives outside of it as well... even though we have no conception of what "outside of the universe" means. |
|
|
|
If you can't prove that it doesn't exist, then it exist. That's the way it works in your divine science.
.... not sure if serious? That's okay. You aren't really sure about much of anything. |
|
|
|
If god did exist and created the universe how would we have the perspective to know this anyway since we are made up of the same matter as the universe. You either believe or you dont, maybe for those who believe god exists then its true, maybe for those who dont its not true. Perhaps the universe is capable of acting out a contradiction like that.
We can know it by the evidence that God intentionally gives about Himself in the universe. For example. Three of the most basic scientific laws are cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy. When you combine these laws, you can see that God has to exist. Think about the combination of these 3 laws in depth, and you will know that God exists. |
|
|
|
Religion is a great business these days.
How can I create my own religion and get followers?
really?how can you said that religion is a great business these days? is in your town so many religion?i never think that religion can give us some money. and definately you can crete your own religion,only god can do that. When you compare the definition of the word "religion" with what atheism is, you find that atheism fits the definition of religion. God didn't create the religion of atheism. Mankind did that, at the prompting of the devil. |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods. In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence. It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it. Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own?  We try to understand how flawed your reasonning is. And believe me it's hard to understand how dumb you can be. You're actually saying that it's not because the same experiment made 1500 times give the same result that this result is correct? Well, thank you for showing us how dumb you can be by stating your inability to understand how dumb I can be. Did I really say that about some experiment made 1500 times? I don't see, above, where I said anything about 1500. You said carbon datation was not correct. Carbon datation has been made not 1500, but hundreds of thousands of times. And you're saying all those experiments are wrong. Wrong? I don't know that "wrong" is a good word for this. Rather, inconclusive. Why? For at least two strong reasons: 1. There have been plenty of times that C-dating has given conflicting results, as reported on right in this thread; 2. Nobody knows what C-14 content was like in the past, beyond what we can date through other methods. In other words, if we have used a "pottery" dating system to show that something is, say, 4,000 years old, we can examine the object for C-14, and determine what the C-14 results are for that object. The flaw in the C-14 dating system is to think that everything in the world follows that exact, same pattern, and that anything before that 4,000 years follows the C-14 pattern of that 4,000-y-o item at all. We don't know for sure. Good guesses, maybe. But entirely inconclusive. The point is, we don't know at all how old the earth is from C-14. Other evidence suggests that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. The best written record, the Bible, suggests that the earth is well under 10,000 years old. |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods. In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence. It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it. Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own? I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh? Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Now there is a statement! Of course, there might be other reasons why you would ask me a question than because you are trying to get an answer from me. I suspect that we all post opinions a times. And, like you, I probably dip over the line into opinion in some ways when I am stating facts. However, if I insult anybody intentionally, it's just that I am agreeing with their insults of themselves. Is it going to bother you a lot if I don't answer your question in the way you want? Ask yourself the question, or go out and research it if you want. So, you make lots of comments about carbon dating being inaccurate but you don't know enough about statistics to post even one simple type of analysis that you don't think is guesswork. I don't think any of us should take anything you write seriously. Well, you are right about the, "I don't think..." part, anyway. |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years Problem is not even accuracy! No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000... BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense? (makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?) Takes someone who doesn't even consider that God might exist, especially in the face of all the cause and effect we see, without anything other than cause and effect being known, to ask why God would do things, when he wouldn't understand the answer if it walked right up and scratched him in the eyeball. Are you just here to troll and be a douche? Really poor representative of Christianity Of course I have considered whether or not God exists... I spent 30 fucking years researching the subject! How about you ya little shit? Yes, I am just here to act like I'm 12, and makes all Christians look stupidThat's what I thought Did you actually thought that BD might be an atheist in disguise coming here to discredit religious freaks? Cause that works! He's not an atheist. He is not coming to discredit atheists (religious freaks). He is coming to show them how they are wrong to be atheists, except if they really want eternal damnation. |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods.
In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence.
It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Sounds quite reliable to me... the example they use to show the possibility of error using only 1 standard deviation, is still only off by like 5% at most... still super accurate This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The extreme measurements included one with a maximum age of under 4,400 years, and another with a minimum age of more than 4,500 years Problem is not even accuracy! No matter the accuracy, when you get ONLY results between 5 millions years old and 4 999 500 years old, it's hard to believe that the real result would be 3000... BADecker thinks God put less Carbon-14 in older objects... just to trick us into thinking he doesn't exist... if that makes sense? (makes no sense to me... why would God hide any/all evidence of creation?) Mouhahahahaha xD That's actually a good explanation! But if Gods has nothing better to do he's really a douchebag xD He's holding your life in His hands. |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods. In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence. It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it. Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own? We try to understand how flawed your reasonning is. And believe me it's hard to understand how dumb you can be. You're actually saying that it's not because the same experiment made 1500 times give the same result that this result is correct? Well, thank you for showing us how dumb you can be by stating your inability to understand how dumb I can be. Did I really say that about some experiment made 1500 times? I don't see, above, where I said anything about 1500. |
|
|
|
Actually, that is man's interpretation of the data. People forget (intentionally) that there is no way to take into account natural C-14 activity in the past, because nobody was there measuring the C-14 data as it happened. In addition, because of the carbon dating that has been proven to be false, the best that carbon dating might be is a better interpretation of things that we know the near date of through other methods. In other words, carbon dating is all guesswork regarding the dates that are being interpreted from the results evidence. It's not guess work! It's statistics! And that's why we do the experiments few dozens of times and we take into account a margin error! But you'd want us to be wrong about millions of years wrong? nonsense! Statistically guesswork, when you look at how far of it is most of the time. Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Or is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? I checked my pockets, under the bed, in the garage, the attic, and all of a sudden I realized, it is all over the Internet for anybody who wants to research it. Is all statistical analysis guesswork to you? Are you such a child that you constantly have to ask me for my beliefs, my knowledge, and my opinions? Can't you figure anything out on your own? I'm attempting to get an answer from you. You post opinions masquerading as facts but when someone asks you a relevant question it's back to insults, eh? Just answer the question: Do you have examples of statistical analysis that you don't think is guesswork? Now there is a statement! Of course, there might be other reasons why you would ask me a question than because you are trying to get an answer from me. I suspect that we all post opinions a times. And, like you, I probably dip over the line into opinion in some ways when I am stating facts. However, if I insult anybody intentionally, it's just that I am agreeing with their insults of themselves. Is it going to bother you a lot if I don't answer your question in the way you want? Ask yourself the question, or go out and research it if you want. |
|
|
|
So it seems that Neantherdal men have the biggest brain capacity. Now I understand why the Europeans are the most intelligent and the Niggers the least  ... I have heard it said that Einstein's brain was 25% smaller than average.  |
|
|
|
But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.
+1 Exactly right. Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals. With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals. Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples. Neanderthals did not stand a chance. Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that. DID YOU JUST TALK ABOUT NEANDERTHALS?  So it means you DO believe and consider evolution then BADecker! Or is Neanderthal also a creation of God? xD You must have missed a lot of my conversation in these semi-religious threads. According to the most fundamental laws of science, everything happens because something else caused it to happen. This goes for the causes, as well. Something caused the causes to happen. It goes all the way back to whatever beginning there was to the whole universe. Because of this, Neanderthals were programmed to exist as they did, just the same as everything that exists right now was programmed to exist the way it does. Whoever or Whatever started the batch of causes and effects that gradually became our universe, is the thing that pre-programmed it all. Whatever evolution is, it was pre-programmed to do exactly what it did, whatever that was. There is no known pure random. Nothing happens by chance. The reason we call something "random," is we are not able to see all the things that cause them to happen. This is the whole reason that Quantum Physics, the greatest probability scheme, was developed... to help us envision the causes that we cannot "see" because of our extremely limited abilities. Not what I meant. You're actually saying that humanity evolved from great apes to humans in 6 000 years then? Cause if Neanderthal exists it means it disappeared in less than 6 000 years too. Don't you feel like it's really fast even for God program? Regarding fast things, look at it like this... as an example. Think about your favorite drink. Maybe it's milk. Maybe it's wine. Maybe it's some kind of juice. Maybe it is simple water. Whatever it is, you like it partially because of its flavor, or how smooth it is, or whatever. How fast can you drink down an 8 ounce glass of it? Perhaps in 2 or 3 seconds. But it tastes so good that you make it last a good 10 seconds because of its flavor. God could have built the whole universe faster than you can snap your fingers. But He took the time that He did - 6 days - because He was savoring the good "flavor" so to speak. He was enjoying it. I don't see any place where I said that humanity evolved from apes. But, yes, Neanderthals disappeared in less than 6,000 years. I mean, how long will you last? The graves are full of people who last way less than 100 years. |
|
|
|
... Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens. Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens. I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working. I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims. You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof. If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it. And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong... Does anybody know why carbon dating is wrong? I don't know why it is wrong. I can guess why it might be wrong. But the reasons why it is wrong aren't important to anyone who is not trying to make it work right, right? The important knowledge for the rest of us is the statistical data that it IS wrong, not why it is wrong. Oh ok, you mean it doesn't matter that NOBODY EVER PROVED IT WRONG? As you KNOW it is wrong? I feel really convinced here. It's ok. You know it. I'm not sure what you are saying here. You asked the question, "And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong..." Well, I guess it isn't exactly in question form. But I am not into working with the carbon dating system at all. Maybe if I were into it, I could tell you why it is wrong. The fact that carbon dating is wrong doesn't have anything to do with the reasons why it is wrong. You seemed to be asking for proof of why it is wrong. I don't know that. I'm not a carbon dating scientist or theorist. Shouldn't you ask someone who is qualified to answer that question? The thing that I have seen is evidence that it IS wrong. You can search the Internet to see the evidence for yourself. Is that what you are asking about? |
|
|
|
But also consider that vehicles with 600 cmc engines go faster than vehicles with 5000 cmc engines. Bigger doesn't actually mean better.
+1 Exactly right. Homo sapiens were more social, formed larger groups that is what allowed them to displace (smash those large brains) the Neanderthals. With smaller brains Sapiens were able to dominate stronger, smarter, more muscular Neanderthals. Scientists estimate Neanderthals formed small groups of 50-100 people vs Sapiens groups of 1000-5000 peoples. Neanderthals did not stand a chance. Modern people get together because they are herded together to be plundered and raped by those who govern. Neanderthals, because of their greater thinking capacity, were above that. DID YOU JUST TALK ABOUT NEANDERTHALS? So it means you DO believe and consider evolution then BADecker! Or is Neanderthal also a creation of God? xD You must have missed a lot of my conversation in these semi-religious threads. According to the most fundamental laws of science, everything happens because something else caused it to happen. This goes for the causes, as well. Something caused the causes to happen. It goes all the way back to whatever beginning there was to the whole universe. Because of this, Neanderthals were programmed to exist as they did, just the same as everything that exists right now was programmed to exist the way it does. Whoever or Whatever started the batch of causes and effects that gradually became our universe, is the thing that pre-programmed it all. Whatever evolution is, it was pre-programmed to do exactly what it did, whatever that was. There is no known pure random. Nothing happens by chance. The reason we call something "random," is we are not able to see all the things that cause them to happen. This is the whole reason that Quantum Physics, the greatest probability scheme, was developed... to help us envision the causes that we cannot "see" because of our extremely limited abilities. |
|
|
|
... Consider. The average Neanderthal was smaller than we, but had almost half again the brain capacity... something like the Roswell aliens. Neanderthal's brain capacity was around 1600 cm3 vs 1200-1400 cm3 brain capacity of homo sapiens. I suppose that you are one of the big brains who has without proof determined that God doesn't exist, while many of the smaller brains have determined that we just don't know, and that there might be a possibility. Big brain in your case isn't working. I don't need proof because I'm not making any claims. You are making an extraordinary, existential claim and provide no proof. If you mean regarding the scientific fact that God exists, I am not making the claim. I am simply pointing out to you how science makes that claim, even though few scientists acknowledge it. And even though you still haven't proved why carbon datation is wrong... Does anybody know why carbon dating is wrong? I don't know why it is wrong. I can guess why it might be wrong. But the reasons why it is wrong aren't important to anyone who is not trying to make it work right, right? The important knowledge for the rest of us is the statistical data that it IS wrong, not why it is wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
