Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Agent.Tom]

the conspiracy spin redux..

I see. So when the conversation turns to establishment "science" and how any researcher merely mentioning the idea of creation is defunded and marginalized... THAT's just "conspiracy spin redux." Move along folks, nothing to see here but tinfoil-hat-wearing Flat Earthers...

However, when the conversation harkens back to how all the authors of the bible, spanning an entire millennia give or take, collaborated together and bullshitted their way through the whole thing to establish a system of control... well, that's just absolute "fact" ... not "conspiracy spin redux." Correct?

It's as much a fact as Hollie's absurd, false claim that all things spiritual have been "disproven."

I see you and Hollie fancy yourselves brilliant intellectuals; you feed off of each other nicely. So, why don't y'all just a get a room, and leave this discussion for the rest of us? Those of us who are here for real, honest, meaningful debate and not here to just incessantly fire off insults thinly veiled with the obligatory sprinkling of pretentious, scholarly-sounding words.

 

[Agent.Tom]

And here it comes... "You insulted us too, so you're a hypocrite!"

Before you even try that tired, old crap. I've read several pages of this stuff and I see what's going on here. There is absolutely ZERO effort to debate the OP. Instead there has been nothing but character assassination and y'all high-fiving each other after each insult.

When Hollie--on page one I think it was--said the existence of the spiritual has been "disproven," any chance of a rational discussion went out the window. It's an entirely false statement and completely destroyed her credibility. Since then all I've seen are insults coming from the two of you, and you both seem to ooze this sense that you are proud of yourselves and your superior intellect. Well, all of that falls on deaf ears when the whole thing starts off with an irrational, illogical, false argument.

 

[Boss]

"There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality.

You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us?

Now, superstitions do often find their way into religions, which are manifestations of human spirituality. I don't profess to know a lot about Christianity, but I believe the message brought by Jesus to the followers of Christianity, specifically dispelled a lot of superstitious beliefs which had been incorporated into the Jewish religion. But again, my point is simple, even what you interpret as superstitious, is evidence of human spiritual connection. That's the important detail you need to take away here. Regardless of the validity of beliefs in specific, they all entail a strong human spiritual connection to something. That is a fact that is hard to dispute. "

No, I am not curious as to why mankind universally creates gods. Man need to find a reason for the randomness of life. Why does that one die, and that one live? There must be something that causes us to thrive, while they starve. The planets move in predictable patterns, Therefore, some superior force controls them. All the acncient religions focused on astrology, from the druids to the azteks, to the Egyptions. One must make sense of a random world, in which seemly unfair things happen all the time. That is why almost half the nation still believes the the JFK killing was a conspiracy. Man can not accept that the most powerful man in the world was brought down by a twentysomething year old loser with a $10 rifle.

I used to live in Vegas. I played blackjack a lot, just for entertainment. Everyone in Vegas believes that there are hidden patterns to random events. Even I began to believe after about three years that I would always win on the hand following being delt a natural blackjack, and that I would lose on the hand following a "push". I sat at a table one night where a woman would get out of her chair, and flap her arms and cluck like a chicken, every time she was delt a blackjack, because she believed it was "good luck". The azteks needed a god who would bring them victories over their enemies. They were not about to leave that up to chance, so they created one, and sacraficed victims to him. The superstition stopped being a superstition, and became a religion. Then the preisthood class was formed. They had an inside track, because they could predict the longest day of the year and the shortest day of the year, as well as comets. Obviously, only people who can speak to gods can do this. My grandmother believed that if she had to walk to the bus stop tomorrow, all she had to do was to pray that it would not rain the night before. She eventually got to the state of mind that she did not recall the failures in her prayers, only the sucesses. The same thing is true of gamblers in Vegas. They will tell you about the $6,000 jackpot they won, but fail to remember the $7,000 they lost in the preceeding 2 months.

I am not going to convice you that there is no spirituality, or god, just as I could not convice the Catholic church that the pope is not infalable. The truth is that there are some of us who can live with the randomness and unfairness of life, while most people simply can't handle it, and choose to believe that it is all an ordered universe and that god simply works in mysterious ways.

Your posting begins with two instances which I have bolded for emphasis.

Man need to find a reason for the randomness of life. Why does that one die, and that one live?

WHY does man need to find a reason? Why does man care why? We see nothing else in nature being so inquisitive, so where did this come from? You are making the same mistake as Hollie, and presuming that we created spirituality to address this curiosity/fear attribute, but you've not demonstrated where this came from. You just proceed to build a case around this, without explaining it. When we use actual science and observe other living things, we don't find this attribute. Animals in the wild don't need to find reason, they don't contemplate why some die and others don't. Some will argue, well, we just have more advanced brain function, but that's not really true either, there is nothing in nature to support this. Other animals, particularly upper primates like chimps, have the same brain function as humans. If we saw evidence that chimps had tried to crudely practice some kind of spirituality, I may be able to accept that this attribute is naturally obtained, but we don't see that. Where did it come from?

Is it that hard to believe, that humans have a special ability to recognize spiritual nature, where other animals don't? That this is where our inquisitive nature comes from, and ultimately, what has led to our achievements as a species? Of course, this is impossible to imagine if you have rejected spiritual nature and closed your mind to the possibility. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong and taking responsibility .....?

Bowie made a rational, though somewhat hyperbolic observation. What followed is what we've come to expect. Repugnant, one-liner insults generically aimed at the entire Christian family. Hollie's response didn't even have a shred of relation to what she replied to. It's as if Hollie just wanted to force-fit her pre-conceived one-liner into a conversation. Obviously, daws was impressed and continued in likewise fashion.

Whatever happened to the good old unbelievers who would take the stage in public debate and offer up real, rational, well-thought-out counterpoints relative to the subject at hand?

 

[hobelim]

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong and taking responsibility .....?

Bowie made a rational, though somewhat hyperbolic observation. What followed is what we've come to expect. Repugnant, one-liner insults generically aimed at the entire Christian family. Hollie's response didn't even have a shred of relation to what she replied to. It's as if Hollie just wanted to force-fit her pre-conceived one-liner into a conversation. Obviously, daws was impressed and continued in likewise fashion.

Whatever happened to the good old unbelievers who would take the stage in public debate and offer up real, rational, well-thought-out counterpoints relative to the subject at hand?

If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you.


It is not possible to have a rational debate with irrational people, If it was you all would have shut up and repented a long time ago.

 

[Boss]

If you people had some truth to offer people would accept it. The fact is you don't want a logical debate, you want someone to reinforce your delusion and when it is exposed for the bullshit that it is you act like someone has done something bad to you.

It is not possible to have a rational debate with irrational people, If it was you all would have shut up and repented a long time ago.

Wow, that would describe the disbelievers in this thread.

The logical debate is found in the OP. It begins with defining parameters and terminology. Before you can even begin to have a debate, you logically have to establish what you are debating, as there are different interpretations of what the words mean, so this has to be first established before the debate happens.

If you are unable to recognize spiritual nature, it disqualifies you from any further participation in the debate, because you lack the ability to comprehend the term "spiritual existence," it means nothing to you. If you don't understand the terms of the debate, how can you debate? I mean, it's no big deal, we are debating the existence of God, and you don't believe in God, so it shouldn't matter that you can't participate in the debate. But for some reason, this point doesn't seem to sink in, we're several thousand posts in, and still getting disbelievers wanting to debate what they are incapable of debating.

The lack of ability to participate in the debate, has led to an insult-fest, bombarding the thread with superfluous nonsense, attacking Christians, attacking religion, mocking and ridiculing with a few snarky cartoons thrown in here and there for good measure. Very few people have been objectively able to even address the OP argument, and a whole lot of disbelieving crusaders are here, slapping each other on the back, acting as if they have defeated the arguments, and they are just here to rub it in.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Is it that hard to believe, that humans have a special ability to recognize spiritual nature, where other animals don't? That this is where our inquisitive nature comes from, and ultimately, what has led to our achievements as a species? Of course, this is impossible to imagine if you have rejected spiritual nature and closed your mind to the possibility. But that doesn't mean it isn't true."

Whatever floats your boat, Boss. I respect your opinion, and applaud your civility. but, for me, it is really very simple. I live in a random universe with no invisable spirituality, god, or creator. Animals do not anticipate death. It only becomes a recognizeable phenomiana when it it occurs, and then, only to the higher primates. Animals have no code of right or wrong, of truth or fiction. They live only for today. They do not know guilt, remorse, or dwell on phiisophical issues. Man has achieved a higher intelligence, which in no way means that he is wiser. In fact, I think that knowledge and wisdom are almost mutually exclusive. You have stated that your concept of spirituality is not necessarily dogmatic, or tied to a religion. I maintain that spirituality is every bit as valid as the Asian concept of reincarnation, which means that I reject it pretty much outright.

I think, therefore I am. When I cease to think, I am not. End of story.

 

[newpolitics]

And here it comes... "You insulted us too, so you're a hypocrite!"

Before you even try that tired, old crap. I've read several pages of this stuff and I see what's going on here. There is absolutely ZERO effort to debate the OP. Instead there has been nothing but character assassination and y'all high-fiving each other after each insult.

When Hollie--on page one I think it was--said the existence of the spiritual has been "disproven," any chance of a rational discussion went out the window. It's an entirely false statement and completely destroyed her credibility. Since then all I've seen are insults coming from the two of you, and you both seem to ooze this sense that you are proud of yourselves and your superior intellect. Well, all of that falls on deaf ears when the whole thing starts off with an irrational, illogical, false argument.

There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.

 

[Boss]

There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.

The OP is full of evidence. You have the inability to recognize spiritual nature, and you can't envision any incarnation of god that isn't a deity or religious. There are no semantics games, there are semantics that need to be clearly understood and defined before any debate can happen. You can't even comprehend the argument, because of your shallow mind that is closed to anything other than your shallow-minded preconceptions of "invisible people in da sky" ...that's the maturity level we're dealing with here. You should just continue your boycott of this thread, before someone comes and embarasses you again.

 

[Hollie]

Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists. I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra. Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one. This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?" His response was, "yes." Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.

First of all, try to comprehend, the OP argument says nothing about a "deity" of any kind. God is used as a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually connect to. Next, think about the wind... it's there, you can feel it there, you can see the effects of it, but you can't see it. Of course, this is where Dorito pops in to interject how we can "see" wind with special machines we built to do that and stuff, but you get the point, right? Some things aren't visible to the naked eye, so is the case with spiritual nature, and it also can't be touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. It's still there. We can't see a thought... again, Dorito will challenge that we can use a special machine to see at thought happening, but before we created a machine, we couldn't physically confirm thoughts existed. Who's to say, we won't one day have a machine that "sees" spiritual nature?

Prayers DO work, if they didn't, people wouldn't bother praying. Now you present an example comparing a prayer for a parking space to people who are starving to death. But your viewpoint is prejudiced by your humanism. Because you are a spiritual human being, you have compassion for other humans and living things, you don't want to see suffering, and it makes no sense to you how any "god" could allow such a thing to happen without answering their prayers. The thing is, if God intervened to right all injustices, and rid us from all suffering and anguish, would we have any concept of those things? If God eliminated all bad, how would we interpret good and bad? Good and less good? The spiritual nature doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't have compassion like spiritual humans, that's a human attribute we're given by the Creator, through our spiritual connection. Perhaps God is weighing on your heart, since you thought about these starving people, and expects you to do something to help? God gave you a conscience, compassion, the ability to see that people are suffering and the ability to do something about that. Instead, you choose to sit here and mock God, make fun of people who believe in God, and pretend that the starving people are God's responsibility, even though you don't believe God exists.

Just more of the unsupported claims to gawds that Boss rattles on with.

Sorry, Boss but appeals to “prayers do work” is a fool’s errand, because it relies completely on supernatural interventions-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Belief in “prayer ” is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

Here’s a simple test for “prayer”:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any appeals for "miraculous" cures. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently? Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer or hoping for “miracle cures” they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "the gods suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And here it comes... "You insulted us too, so you're a hypocrite!"

Before you even try that tired, old crap. I've read several pages of this stuff and I see what's going on here. There is absolutely ZERO effort to debate the OP. Instead there has been nothing but character assassination and y'all high-fiving each other after each insult.

When Hollie--on page one I think it was--said the existence of the spiritual has been "disproven," any chance of a rational discussion went out the window. It's an entirely false statement and completely destroyed her credibility. Since then all I've seen are insults coming from the two of you, and you both seem to ooze this sense that you are proud of yourselves and your superior intellect. Well, all of that falls on deaf ears when the whole thing starts off with an irrational, illogical, false argument.

There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. .

lol, atheists say that about EVERY argument that supports a belief in God, from the classic five arguments for God from antiquity to the modern versions of same and newer ones today.

You don't want to debate, so you all simply dismiss everything out of hand.

And it doesn't take long for everyone to see what you are as you engage in this 'discussion'.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists. I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra. Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one. This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?" His response was, "yes." Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.

First of all, try to comprehend, the OP argument says nothing about a "deity" of any kind. God is used as a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually connect to. Next, think about the wind... it's there, you can feel it there, you can see the effects of it, but you can't see it. Of course, this is where Dorito pops in to interject how we can "see" wind with special machines we built to do that and stuff, but you get the point, right? Some things aren't visible to the naked eye, so is the case with spiritual nature, and it also can't be touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. It's still there. We can't see a thought... again, Dorito will challenge that we can use a special machine to see at thought happening, but before we created a machine, we couldn't physically confirm thoughts existed. Who's to say, we won't one day have a machine that "sees" spiritual nature?

Prayers DO work, if they didn't, people wouldn't bother praying. Now you present an example comparing a prayer for a parking space to people who are starving to death. But your viewpoint is prejudiced by your humanism. Because you are a spiritual human being, you have compassion for other humans and living things, you don't want to see suffering, and it makes no sense to you how any "god" could allow such a thing to happen without answering their prayers. The thing is, if God intervened to right all injustices, and rid us from all suffering and anguish, would we have any concept of those things? If God eliminated all bad, how would we interpret good and bad? Good and less good? The spiritual nature doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't have compassion like spiritual humans, that's a human attribute we're given by the Creator, through our spiritual connection. Perhaps God is weighing on your heart, since you thought about these starving people, and expects you to do something to help? God gave you a conscience, compassion, the ability to see that people are suffering and the ability to do something about that. Instead, you choose to sit here and mock God, make fun of people who believe in God, and pretend that the starving people are God's responsibility, even though you don't believe God exists.

Just more of the unsupported claims to gawds that Boss rattles on with.

Sorry, Boss but appeals to “prayers do work” is a fool’s errand, because it relies completely on supernatural interventions-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory.

And since when does all knowledge have to have a scientific basis?

You are a fool.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Is it that hard to believe, that humans have a special ability to recognize spiritual nature, where other animals don't? That this is where our inquisitive nature comes from, and ultimately, what has led to our achievements as a species? Of course, this is impossible to imagine if you have rejected spiritual nature and closed your mind to the possibility. But that doesn't mean it isn't true."

Whatever floats your boat, Boss. I respect your opinion, and applaud your civility. but, for me, it is really very simple. I live in a random universe with no invisable spirituality, god, or creator. Animals do not anticipate death. It only becomes a recognizeable phenomiana when it it occurs, and then, only to the higher primates. Animals have no code of right or wrong, of truth or fiction. They live only for today. They do not know guilt, remorse, or dwell on phiisophical issues. Man has achieved a higher intelligence, which in no way means that he is wiser..

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

lol, when are you libtards going to grow up and start accepting responsibility for what YOU do?

 

[JimBowie1958]

That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

the conspiracy spin redux..

No, its called networking and 'pursuing mutual interests'.

And even if we were talking conspiracy, what you think the Mafia isn't a conspiracy? The KGB? Al Qaeda' various terrorism efforts? Price fixing that is going on in various industries?

Conspiracies happen all the time, even if libtards like you don't see them for what they are, just like you cant see God.

 

[Hollie]

There is nothing in the OP to debate. It is a vapid assertion with no evidence. So, the argument fails and this thread goes in circles because Boss plays semantic games and continually moves the goal posts when he is pressed. One minute, we're not talking about god, the next minute we are, and yet his OP clearly claims proof of god, when he supplies none. This is the worst piece of argumentation I have ever seen in my entire life.

The OP is full of evidence. You have the inability to recognize spiritual nature, and you can't envision any incarnation of god that isn't a deity or religious. There are no semantics games, there are semantics that need to be clearly understood and defined before any debate can happen. You can't even comprehend the argument, because of your shallow mind that is closed to anything other than your shallow-minded preconceptions of "invisible people in da sky" ...that's the maturity level we're dealing with here. You should just continue your boycott of this thread, before someone comes and embarasses you again.

Try and be honest, Boss. It's not a conspiracy that many people have identified your claims to spirit worlds and gawds as silly, pointless and utterly absent meaningful proof. Your requirement that we must accept your "because I say so" demands in order to believe your claims may work with a "less than discerning" audience, Just don't expect that nonsense to be accepted by those who don't share your particular, partisan religious beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

First of all, try to comprehend, the OP argument says nothing about a "deity" of any kind. God is used as a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually connect to. Next, think about the wind... it's there, you can feel it there, you can see the effects of it, but you can't see it. Of course, this is where Dorito pops in to interject how we can "see" wind with special machines we built to do that and stuff, but you get the point, right? Some things aren't visible to the naked eye, so is the case with spiritual nature, and it also can't be touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. It's still there. We can't see a thought... again, Dorito will challenge that we can use a special machine to see at thought happening, but before we created a machine, we couldn't physically confirm thoughts existed. Who's to say, we won't one day have a machine that "sees" spiritual nature?

Prayers DO work, if they didn't, people wouldn't bother praying. Now you present an example comparing a prayer for a parking space to people who are starving to death. But your viewpoint is prejudiced by your humanism. Because you are a spiritual human being, you have compassion for other humans and living things, you don't want to see suffering, and it makes no sense to you how any "god" could allow such a thing to happen without answering their prayers. The thing is, if God intervened to right all injustices, and rid us from all suffering and anguish, would we have any concept of those things? If God eliminated all bad, how would we interpret good and bad? Good and less good? The spiritual nature doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't have compassion like spiritual humans, that's a human attribute we're given by the Creator, through our spiritual connection. Perhaps God is weighing on your heart, since you thought about these starving people, and expects you to do something to help? God gave you a conscience, compassion, the ability to see that people are suffering and the ability to do something about that. Instead, you choose to sit here and mock God, make fun of people who believe in God, and pretend that the starving people are God's responsibility, even though you don't believe God exists.

Just more of the unsupported claims to gawds that Boss rattles on with.

Sorry, Boss but appeals to “prayers do work” is a fool’s errand, because it relies completely on supernatural interventions-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory.

And since when does all knowledge have to have a scientific basis?

You are a fool.

In that case, make an unscientific, irrational argument for your gawds.

Oh, wait. That's all you can offer.

It seems you are the fool.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

lol, when are you libtards going to grow up and start accepting responsibility for what YOU do?

Did you realize that the entirety of your every post is cliche'?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason from the evidence of reality.

 

[Hollie]

Nor do they want to discuss and learn and see for themselves the reality of the theories, they place their trust in. I was not trying to put daws and hollie to the test and I probably should have made that clear. that could be their reluctance to answer my questions. This is a new approach, get them to try and reason out the evidence from reality.

When your evidence is nothing more than falsified "quotes", appeals to supernaturalism and creationist nonsense, you should first make an effort to understand what a defendable argument consists of.