Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, but you do need God.
Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.
major bump!No, but you do need God.
Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.
Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.
No, but you do need God.
Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.
Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.
bahahahahahahaha! ok explain how you can be a decent person and be a depraved animal at the same time..?No, but you do need God.
Without god, you aren't a decent human being. You're just a depraved animal.
Oh please. Just because I don't worship your God doesn't mean I can't be a decent person. The reverse is true. Just because I worship some deity doesn't mean I can't be a total piece of shit.
I didn't say you had to worship god to be a decent person. I said without God, you are nothing more than a depraved animal.
There's a difference. I'm sorry that your 8th grade education, your complete ignorance of the bible, and your burning bigotry prevents you from understanding what you read. Try harder.
Thank you for proving my point.
In huge black spades.
Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will.
Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.
Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
Yes, we would, as we do, and the bible indicates that we always will.
Back to the idiocy of Daws...he doesn't support the stupid comments he makes. He's a bigot who uses hate speech against Christians. That's the long and short of it.
Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?
Like dark matter, what you can't see/prove is just a theory. Could be there, but then again, maybe not. I need proof before elevating a theory to a fact. Doesn't everyone?Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?
Do we argue over whether a tree exits or not? No? Because the tree we can see, touch and smell, even hear it rustling in the wind. Your god? Nada.
The bible? Written by men decades after the alleged events occurred.
So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?
What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.
I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.
So what you can't see, just doesn't exist?
What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.
I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.
I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?
What I can't see and what gives no other evidence for its existence? No, if something is invisible and evidence free, it is safe to say it does not exist. I concede the fact that it may in fact exist, but is highly unlikely if there is no physical evidence of said thing.
I have no data concerning any other plane of existence. The data I have concerning this plane of existence that we all know and love does not require any outside intervention to function, nor is there any evidence that any outside intervention at any time. The only logical conclusion is there is never was outside intervention in the first place. I can't prove a negative (there is no God), but there is no proof of the positive(there is a God). Until evidence comes to light, I have to assume there is no God, or at least one that intervenes with us.
I guess that all depends on what you catagorize as 'evidence', doesn't it?
That would be data that is unambiguous, subject to objective testing and repeatability, is falsifiable, and from which verifiable predictions can be made. "Evidence for God" doesn't meet these prerequisites because personal revelation of said "evidence" is, by definition, first person in nature, and so is subjective in nature.
Like dark matter, what you can't see/prove is just a theory. Could be there, but then again, maybe not. I need proof before elevating a theory to a fact. Doesn't everyone?
Up until 100 years ago we couldn't see germs, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Do you think humanity is now at the pinnacle ot it's knowledge? Will humanity ever reach a pinnacle where we can explain or know everything?
Steven's response was spot on. And he's right, there is science that points to something holding things together.