MY favorite arguments for the existence of the Christian God:

[AV1611VET]

Judge Moore deserved to be gone after. He made it clear in his pronouncements about it that his monument to the Ten Commandments was not just a monument to the idea that the Ten Commandments were good laws worthy of all men to be considered, but a monument to right-wing fundamentalist Protestantism, the only religion which should be tolerated by the legal system he represented.

And that's why they went after the display of the Ten Commandments?

Right ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Speedwell]

And that's why they went after the display of the Ten Commandments?

Right ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

Right. It was a particularly egregious vilolation of the First Amendment. And I understand why you need to see it as part of the cosmic war between theism and atheism, when it was merely the hubris of a Protestant minority being put in its place.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You'll undoubtedly hear something of him. He's a creationist hero running for the US Senate from Alabama. It has come out that he likes diddling little girls, but the creationists of Alabama are still behind him because their political agenda is more important to them. The election is next Tuesday--watch for it.

I believe the election is 12/12 ... 2 weeks from now.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe the election is 12/12 ... 2 weeks from now.

You mean we're going to have to put up with this hoorah for two more weeks? Ugh.

 

[HitchSlap]

And that's why they went after the display of the Ten Commandments?

Right ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

You’re Genghis Khan’t.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. It was a particularly egregious vilolation of the First Amendment.

For those countries who don't have a First Amendment like ours, are you against they putting the Ten Commandments on display on government property?

(Please answer this.)

 

[Speedwell]

For those countries who don't have a First Amendment like ours, are you against they putting the Ten Commandments on display on government property?

(Please answer this.)

I'm not really against it anywhere that it is not a manifestation of sectarian bumptiousness.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not really against it anywhere that it is not a manifestation of sectarian bumptiousness.

Riiight.

 

[Speedwell]

Riiight.

Right. That is what the 1st Amendment was crafted to protect us against--not God. If the Religious Right wasn't so pushy and political about it, nobody would care

 

[Dave RP]

For those countries who don't have a First Amendment like ours, are you against they putting the Ten Commandments on display on government property?

(Please answer this.)

You asked and I’ll answer. Yes I am because where do you stop? Extracts from the Koran? Other extracts from the bible? We live in a secular, free society, believe what you like, in the privacy of your own home/ church/ mosque but the government keeps clear of all that.

 

[AV1611VET]

You asked and I’ll answer. Yes I am because where do you stop? Extracts from the Koran? Other extracts from the bible? We live in a secular, free society, believe what you like, in the privacy of your own home/ church/ mosque but the government keeps clear of all that.

Thank you for an honest answer.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Frumious, this isn't all necessarily directed at you...some is, but this also brought to mind other things I though needed mentioning.



Fallacy? I realize how popular a term that is for defense of your side of this but it does nothing here.

com·mon sense
ˌkämən ˈsens/
noun

1. good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
   "use your common sense"
   synonyms: good sense, sense, native wit, sensibleness, judgment, levelheadedness, prudence, discernment, canniness, astuteness, shrewdness, wisdom, insight, perception, perspicacity; More

I rest my case unless someone else actually wants to tell me common sense has no place in determining where we came from.

Also, this brings to mind, the way some non believers try to do away with anything that works for their opposition, and how the attempts can get pretty outragous. The end result of this was to basically say "I'm sorry good sense isn't allowed in the debate on where we all came from"... exactly what I was supposed to have been convinced of here.

While I'm at it, Here is another they (non believers) try to fiddle around with so it suits their purposes but not the opposing side:

"Science proves nothing" And how any one dares try to push that one is beyond me, but they do.

See, science is practically God when it comes to trying to prove their end, but when is comes down to actually "prove it" then "Science proves nothing" "and that's why we can't actually prove it."

Huh?

Seriously, this would be great stuff for a stand up routine, and I'm surprised some comedian hasn't latched on to it yet.

How does common sense support anything supernatural? My common sense says why invoke no evidenced invisible natural law defying beings that different people say different things about to "explain" things that we already know or none of us know? That is not good sense, not at all. I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no good evidence for any of it as of yet, not because I think it isn't common sense. Common sense is only good sense when we have knowledge behind it. And it still is not the best tool we have.

In STEM fields only math has proof. The rest have evidence and solid applications. If you are speaking in a legal or layman sense than science does produce proofs. I'm pretty sure many people have told you this already. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is one of the most well evidenced theories there has ever been. If you reject it because you think there isn't enough proof for it then you must reject all scientific theories. But you don't, because you know science works and most other scientific theories you don't think affect your biblical interpretation or upset your faith beliefs.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Yep, and the reality is, and had you been paying attention, and common sense didn't already tell you, you'd know, nothing ever poofed into being.

Kenny, you know we know zero about what "nothing" actually is, if it is even anything and we cannot say what it can or can not do. We don't know how the universe started or even if it started at all. We can only apply common sense and it to be usually right if we already have knowledge of or what we think is similar to it. It is great for when you have to think fast but a person's common sense can be wrong. That is why we use scientific tools instead.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't know how the universe started or even if it started at all.

I wonder why?

That is why we use scientific tools instead.

Now I know.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I wonder why?Now I know.

AV!

 

[AV1611VET]

AV!

 

[Kenny'sID]

How does common sense support anything supernatural? My common sense says why invoke no evidenced invisible natural law defying beings that different people say different things about to "explain" things that we already know or none of us know? That is not good sense, not at all. I don't believe in the supernatural because there is no good evidence for any of it as of yet, not because I think it isn't common sense. Common sense is only good sense when we have knowledge behind it. And it still is not the best tool we have.

In STEM fields only math has proof. The rest have evidence and solid applications. If you are speaking in a legal or layman sense than science does produce proofs. I'm pretty sure many people have told you this already. Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is one of the most well evidenced theories there has ever been. If you reject it because you think there isn't enough proof for it then you must reject all scientific theories. But you don't, because you know science works and most other scientific theories you don't think affect your biblical interpretation or upset your faith beliefs.

How does common sense support, something from nothing, or even the unknown.

Mine is a likelihood between the two choices.

Supernatural, would be natural if we understood it, and for all we all know, what God does is absolutely natural, and how it's done can be explained. Simply meaning, the term may not mean much at all.

 

[Michael]

When people have a particular set of beliefs, presenting factual evidence that contradicts those beliefs will often have the contrary effect of cementing them more strongly:

I suppose that emotional reaction tends to explain the persistence of DM theory in spite of billions of dollars worth of lab failures.

It's a little disconcerting that actual data seems to have no effect, or even a negative effect on belief, especially if you don't share much in common with the other side of the debate (whatever it might be). We all seem to want to know the "truth", but if opposing/contradictory data has no effect on one's position on a topic, or even a negative (polarizing) effect, it's hard to see how various individuals are likely to change their opinions.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny, you know we know zero about what "nothing" actually is, if it is even anything and we cannot say what it can or can not do. We don't know how the universe started or even if it started at all. We can only apply common sense and it to be usually right if we already have knowledge of or what we think is similar to it. It is great for when you have to think fast but a person's common sense can be wrong. That is why we use scientific tools instead.

Well at least you are't trying to tell me common sense has no place in this debate.

Nothing is nothing...zip.

Why I still bother is beyond common sense, but here's more. If I created a person, I'd want him/her to know why, where they came from, and what it's all about, hence the Bible and the God of that bible makes sense.

Just as a piece of dust from nothing would be incredible, but all the complicated things in the universe, only some of which we can just barely figure out? Something like that takes intelligence, hands down...nothing else even comes close to explaining it all. And why that would not be an assumed fact is beyond me...it completely blows my mind how people cannot see that. To not see it from just that explanation is so far fetched to me that I often do not, but have to hold back my laughter. And I don't laugh to make fun, it truly is that preposterous to me to even consider just the opposite of what the signs tell us.

It's amazing to me what conditioning can do, in that it can keep people from seeing what is so obvious to others. And, BTW, all that is before I even get into the faith part...it just makes sense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I suppose that emotional reaction tends to explain the persistence of DM theory in spite of billions of dollars worth of lab failures.

No; what they are doing there is testing what they think are the most likely hypotheses.