SUBWAY NOT SELLING PORK COS OF MUSSIES

[Darts101]

If people are the product of mindless purposeless evolution then how can you say that their behaviour is wrong? Where does this objective ought come from when it cant come from the evolution you believe in? How can you say that a persons behaviour is morally wrong when you don't believe there is an objective standard for how things out to be?

[doG]

More cogitation is required.

[Monkety Tonkety]

If people are the product of mindless purposeless evolution then how can you say that their behaviour is wrong? Where does this objective ought come from when it cant come from the evolution you believe in? How can you say that a persons behaviour is morally wrong when you don't believe there is an objective standard for how things out to be?

Sorry, but I don't understand what one has to do with the other? Because I'm an atheist I can't think that certain types of behaviour are wrong? No, I'm not having that.

And evolution is not 'dumb luck'. Many animals have evolved for good reason, as I alluded to before. They adopted defences, perhaps a toxic skin, to protect them from predators, so the predators then had to adapt to survive by perhaps developing an immunity to that toxin. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are so many examples of evolution, and 'dumb luck' is not a term I would use to describe it.

I do not believe we need an ancient book to decide what is right or wrong. We are going around in circles here, but I just for the life of me can't see why I am forbidden from making moral judgements because of atheism. They are not mutually exclusive.

And as for Churchill, there is evidence to prove he existed. So much of it! Same with 9/11 and no doubt even George Washington. Those who disbelieve in their existence would be corrected pretty quickly. It isn't difficult. So you needn't be concerned with the burden of proof there, as any one of us could prove their existence quite easily.

But with God, there are no witnesses to his existence. There is no evidence that praying works (scientific tests have been conducted in this area). I will not move from my position that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. You are right that teapots are for tea, but can you prove there is no celestial teapot? No, nor can I. But we can shave off the probabilities and say that, in all likeliness, it does not exist. As Bertrand Russell said, the fact that his celestial teapot isn't in scripture means that nobody is going to believe it and nobody will be seen as a heretic or crazy for not doing so. If the Bible talked about a teapot in space, then millions of people would believe it!

I just wish people could give ONE reason, ONE piece of evidence to prove God's existence. But they can't. Neither can they explain the ridiculous 'resurrection' of Jesus. Why has nobody else been brought back from the dead? It just isn't possible.

[Justin Credible]

Jesus the man was a child molester , his mother was on the game.

Can you prove darts that is not true

[Darts101]

"Sorry, but I don't understand what one has to do with the other? Because I'm an atheist I can't think that certain types of behaviour are wrong? No, I'm not having that."


Atheism provides you no foundation to say anything is morally wrong. How did what Jeffrey dhamer do violate atheism.

"And evolution is not 'dumb luck'. Many animals have evolved for good reason, as I alluded to before. They adopted defences, perhaps a toxic skin, to protect them from predators, so the predators then had to adapt to survive by perhaps developing an immunity to that toxin. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. There are so many examples of evolution, and 'dumb luck' is not a term I would use to describe it."

because something is useful to an animal that does not mean that it evolved. You still need a mechanism and you believe it happened by dumb luck. You believe dna copying errors (dumb luck) created the instructions for lungs, the liver, the heart etc. You believe you are related to turnips by dumb luck.

" I do not believe we need an ancient book to decide what is right or wrong. We are going around in circles here, but I just for the life of me can't see why I am forbidden from making moral judgements because of atheism. They are not mutually exclusive. "

"And as for Churchill, there is evidence to prove he existed. So much of it! Same with 9/11 and no doubt even George Washington. Those who disbelieve in their existence would be corrected pretty quickly. It isn't difficult. So you needn't be concerned with the burden of proof there, as any one of us could prove their existence quite easily."

Whether it is easy to prove or not is irrelevant, either the person making the claim of non existence has a burden of proof or they don't. If you agree that they do have a burden of proof then you reject your claim that the person making a negative argument has no burden.

" But with God, there are no witnesses to his existence."

there is no evidence that dumb luck create lungs. livers, hearts etc, You believe it.


"There is no evidence that praying works (scientific tests have been conducted in this area)"

I think you mean no "scientific evidence" by referring to scientific tests. I would have to look into your claim. I wouldn't take anything you say without a pinch of salt.

Futhermore the argument about prayer is a side issue as to whether there is a creator or not, A creator is not contingent on answering prayer. let's not try to distract with red herrings.

The reason that i don't believe in a celestial teapot is because I don't have any reason too as i pointed out in the other post. It is not because it is a negative claim that it carries no burden, it was intended as something be fictional in the first place and is recognized as such by anyone talking about it. No one seriously believes that a china teapot exists. You haven't shown that there is a good reason to believe in one, Just like I do not have any reason to believe that lungs, hearts, livers, kidneys, the human brain, the human reproductive system came into being by dumb luck.

"I just wish people could give ONE reason, ONE piece of evidence to prove God's existence. But they can't."

You mean they cannot prove to you. You can't give me ONE reason why i should believe that the lungs, liver, brain came into being by dumb luck. You believe in it but you can't Prove it.

[Monkety Tonkety]

My goodness, you are hard work, aren't you?

I have not said I believe in 'dumb luck'. Evolution is not dumb luck.

The reason I mentioned prayer is because many religious people do pray to God, it's because they see him as an interventionist God, who not only created the world and every species within 7 days (busy man, God), but actually intervenes in our lives until we die (busy man but still has time to get involved in all the trivial shite that we go through each day). That doesn't mean all christians believe an in interventionist God, but many do. So it is kinda relevant.

And the reason that Churchill is different is because we can hear speeches, actually see him. Where can we see God? Any idea? In the clouds? On the moon? In Rhyl? And I always put the burden of proof with the claimant, and I would be happy to prove that Churchill existed and am confident I could do so.

Now, can you prove that God exists? Can you prove that we were 'created', rather than evolved? Science is not my field of expertise, but there is just so much evidence out there I'm astonished that anyone could challenge it. Really.

We're going around in circles and I'm not sure what else I can add to the discussion. But don't tell me that I cannot have an opinion on right and wrong because I don't believe in fairies or men in the sky. I think for myself and always have.

[Justin Credible]

Now, can you prove that God exists?

He cannot , so in order to make his claims of a higher power existing he is trying to switch it to you or I proving a god does not exist to validate his claims.

[Darts101]

"I have not said I believe in 'dumb luck'. Evolution is not dumb luck. "

Yes the evolution you believe in would be chance, aka dumb luck, You believe dna copying errors created the instructions for lungs, hearts etc. Denying what you believe does not change what you believe.

The existence of a creator is not contingent on whether the creator answers prayer or not, it is possible to go into it but it is a sidetrack from whether there is a creator or not.

" And the reason that Churchill is different is because we can hear speeches, actually see him. Where can we see God? Any idea? In the clouds? On the moon? In Rhyl?"

You don't see living things orginating by dumb luck. You do not see one type of life giving rise to a different type of life over millions of years by dumb luck. You believe in Ghost lineages, A fossil line that has no trace in the fossil record. Did you see a living organism evolve from inorganic matter on the earth millions of years ago?

No, You have never seen this but you believe it. You don't have proof for it.



You keep saying the claimant, which claimant?

The person that claims that 9/11 did not happen is a claimant, the person that claims the holocaust did not happen is the claimant. You claim that they have no burden,, You assert it but you give no logical justification that people can go around claiming these things as false have no burden.

"Now, can you prove that God exists?"

Gaz and I think you also made the claim of non existence. You were the claimants. later on in the discussion I said what i believe and I did not claim that I could prove my position. I haven't said that anyone has to believe what I do. I have admitted that I have a belief.

I already told you it is not about proof, this is called argument ad nauseum. can you prove that the lungs, liver, heart etc came into being as the result of sheer dumb luck? can you prove it. You believe in something which you cannot prove so why the double standard?



"Science is not my field of expertise, but there is just so much evidence out there I'm astonished that anyone could challenge it. Really."

You havent shown that the lungs, liver, reproductive system, the human brain are the result of dumb luck.

You believe in sheer dumb luck evolution and the sheer dumb luck evolution provides you no grounds to say anything is morally right or wrong. Atheism provides you no grounds.

What made jeffrey dhamer a bad atheist?

Since when would the dumb luck evolution you believe in have a goal for how people Ought to behave?

[Darts101]

You made the claim of truth.

Where is the proof that it is not reasonable to hold a belief about anything without proof?

As you believe in dumb luck evolution, Where is the proof that the brain evolved into being by dumb luck?



"so in order to make his claims of a higher power existing"

You made the claim, You made the claim of non existence. And No, I didn't say if you cannot prove something to be false then the opposite is true.

"he is trying to switch it to you or I proving a god does not exist to validate his claims."

You made the claim. I asked you to back up your claim.

You can keep lying but lying over and over will not make what you say true.



However Which one of your 5 senses told you that it is only reasonable to believe what you can experience through your 5 senses?

[Darts101]

As you believe in dumb luck evolution, Where is the proof that the brain evolved into being by dumb luck?

Not only do you believe that your distant cousins were turnips and bananas, Not only do you believe that you have cousins that were mushrooms. Not only do you believe that you are a cousin of dandelions but on top of this you believe it happened by dumb luck.

How does gaz think the human brain came into being, dumb luck. How does gaz believe the lungs, liver and kidneys came into being, duuuuumb luck. How does gaz believe the reproductive system came into being? duuuuuumb luck, How does gaz believe the disgestive system came into being? duuuuummmmb luck.

can he prove that all of this could happen by duuuuuuuummmmmb Luck?

Nope. he believes in something for which he cannot prove.

Gaz believes that his reasoning faculties trace back to dumb luck. he believes the human brain is the result of dumb luck.

This is just some of the dumb luck that gaz believes in, he believes in a whole lot more, But hey he is entitled to his faith eh.

The problem with gaz is not that he has so much faith in dumb luck, he can believe what he likes, The problem is that he demands others provide proof for what they believe while he does not provide any proof for what he believes. Maybe he can't figure out the hypocrisy or maybe he is trying to show that his reasoning faculties are the outcome of dumb luck.

[Justin Credible]

Gaz believes that his reasoning faculties trace back to dumb luck. he believes the human brain is the result of dumb luck.

This is just some of the dumb luck that gaz believes in, he believes in a whole lot more, But hey he is entitled to his faith eh.

The problem with gaz is not that he has so much faith in dumb luck, he can believe what he likes, The problem is that he demands others provide proof for what they believe while he does not provide any proof for what he believes. Maybe he can't figure out the hypocrisy or maybe he is trying to show that his reasoning faculties are the outcome of dumb luck.

Therein lies your problems., where have i said I believed what you imagine i believe ?
You like the billions of people on this planet over the years who speak of a god or higher existence have zero basis or proof to back anything up, and you never will, you expect people to simply put faith in something with zero proof of an existence, all this while you berate those who dont believe, and make false assumptions as to what i do believe in.

Here is my final post with you on this as you are too set in your ways to see things from any other prospective.
God does not exist, I dont have to prove that to anyone, that is my belief and nothing you can do or say will change that, but not surprising that a person who does believe in a god or higher existence would have difficulty accepting those that dont believe, where have we seen that before.....oh yeah history has shown us that in witch hunts, the inquisition, religious war, etc...that anyone who dares to believe in something different to their god must be wrong.

You cannot prove a god exists, you know it, i know and if a god does exist and I find out after I die, then whats the problem, surely he will forgive me for doubting him for leaving no actual proof ever of his existence

[Darts101]

Well going back through this thread first Monkety claimed no existence, he said it is ok to mock and used the term silly beliefs.

but he didnt prove his claim. he was unable to back up his claim to knowledge and then engaged in the logical fallacy of special pleading claiming that he does not need to back up his claims. gaz did the same thing. He Followed up making claims of non existence then engaged in the same logicial fallacy. I then admitted that I have a belief and i was honest that it is a belief and did not claim that it was proven, Unlike monkety and gaz who made claims to knowledge. I was honest and made no truth claim. I admitted that i have a belief. These guys claim to know. the all knowing Monkety from cardiff and the angry irishman from Cork.

This is their logical arguments, ie that is bullshit, that is silly etc

Aristotle, plato and other thinkers throughout history cannot compete with great logical arguments like that.

How could anyone compete with the intellectual giant from cork and the manchester united supporter from Cardiff?

Note the sarcasm.

Let's see if things get better for them.

this is the definition of claimant

Claimant:
claim·ant
[kley-muhnt] Show IPA
noun
a person who makes a claim.


There is nothing in the definition of claimant that says the claim has to be a positive one. Monkety however thinks claimant means the claim has to be a positive one. As you can see Monkety does not know what he is talking about.


Monkety does not understand the word Claimant, he thinks that claimant means a person who makes a positive claim.

That has to be up there with his claim that ferguson had no influence over any referees because they couldn't hear him. Comedy Gold.




They not only believe they have distant cousins that are bananas and turnips but they believe it occured by dumb luck, they believe that the digestive system, the heart, the lungs, the liver, the human brain etc are the result of dumb luck.

Dumb luck is their God.

Did they see dumb luck doing what they think dumb luck can do? Nope. they believe in dumb luck anway. They do not have proof that dumb luck can do what they think it can do but they demand proof from others. They believe in things without proof and then demand others provide proof.



gaz appealed to the 5 senses and yet he cannot say which one of his 5 senses told him that you cannot believe that which you do not experience through the 5 senses. It is funny that while gaz appealed to the 5 senses " gaz will only believe what his five senses tell him!" Gaz cannot tell me which of his five senses told him that. The truth is that his empiricism (that Gaz can only know what his senses tells him) cannot be empirically sensed, it doesn't meet gaz's own criteria for reality and so is self-refuting. Gaz and monkety position is to argue against the invisible, that you do not need faith in that which is unseen and unsensed in order to explain everything in this universe!" Which of their five senses told them that?, What told Gaz and monkety that all that is needed to explain things is sense experience? If they say their senses told them then they are engaging in circular reasoning. If they say that something other than their five senses told them then they refute themselves.

Gaz accepts the universal, IMMATERIAL, Unchanging laws logic even to make an argument. In order to argue that I am right and wrong then he is accepting the law of non contradiction. he cannot smell, taste or touch the law of non contradiction, No he can't. When gaz argues that he is an atheist then he is assuming the law of identity. Gaz and monkety assume immaterial,universal unchanging laws of logic to even argue and yet this is not consistent within their materialistic world view. They are assuming something that it is not consistent with their strict naturalistic empericist worldview.

gaz and monkety by believeing in evolution accept the invisible when they believes in Ghost lineages


Gaz and monkety claim that others believe in the invisble as if it is a term of derision but not only did they not see sheer dumb luck do what they believe it can do but they believe in Ghost Lineages, In their evolutionary minds eye they see Phantoms. They see entities that must have existed, just because their belief system requires it. And yet these guys require proof from others in what they believe.

gaz and monkety do not believe that the works of shakespeare or the musical work of beethoven is the result of dumb luck but they believe we have dumb luck to thank for shakespeare and beethoven.

Not only is it funny when you see atheists moralizing, yes they are confused about their position, but seeing their lack of awareness on this thread is hilarious. Especially when atheists go on about evil, in an atheistic universe it makes no sense to go on about evil. On their atheistic, dumb luck evolutionary worldview man is matter in motion in motion governed by the laws of physics. It would be like judging a boulder for rolling incorrectly. They are very confused.

The Points raised in this post show that in order to argue against a worldview they have to borrow from that worldview while denying their own.

They couldn't prove their claims about non existence and made up some rule that exists in their imagination that they don't have to prove their claims to knowledge because their claims are negative.

They think that their negative claims about a worldview require no justification and yet at the same time they are borro from that worldview and act as if their own is false. Hilarious.

They couldn't back their claims about non existence. They made up their own rule and engaged in the fallacy of special pleading to excuse themselves from backing their claim to knowledge. They can't provide proof that the dumb luck they have faith in can do what they think it can do. They believe in things they can't prove yet demand proof of others. Shows that they have no credibility. They see phantoms in their evolutionary minds eye with their belief in Ghost lineages. they can't empirically sense them of course. The irony.


It has been fun debunking you guys and pointing out how you have failed.

Thanks for playing.

[Randall]

have i logged on to the david icke forum by mistake here?

[fandarts]

I always thought darts101 was a 1 trick pony but i have to say my respect for him has grown. his schooling of mt and jc here reinforces that he does have a few more extra brain cells than i previously thought

[Monkety Tonkety]

I always thought darts101 was a 1 trick pony but i have to say my respect for him has grown. his schooling of mt and jc here reinforces that he does have a few more extra brain cells than i previously thought

I don't know if you're trolling, but how has he schooled us? He's persistent and stubborn, I'll give him that. After the Man Utd debate, I wasn't sure whether he was on the wind-up, but he's laid out his arguments quite well here. The problem is, he keeps making assumptions about what Gaz and I believe. He thinks we are under the impression that we evolved from turnips or whatever.

Darts101, what 'evidence' could I possibly provide to disprove God's existence? You say it's different to the celestial teapot or the tooth fairy or easter bunny, but it is not! There is no evidence for the existence of any of them. I don't respect any of them. Do you also believe that Jesus came back from the dead? Grazer does, you might get on well with him. He thinks God exists, and not only does he 'believe' in that, but he thinks it is based on evidence! He's a Liverpool fan too. Wonder if he thinks this Juventus banner is 'evidence' for god's existence?

[Justin Credible]

I like Grazer, good lad even if he believes in made up shit, then almost everybody believes in some made up shit, if its not gods, its liverpools FC innocence in any wrongdoing or some soaps like coronation street etx.

some people want to believe, in fact they need it, the thought of reality is too frightened for them I suspect.

If people find comfort in religion thats a good thing, I wont knock them for that and will accept that, but you would hope they would grant you the same right to believe or not believe in whatever it is that I and others believe

[Darts101]

I always thought darts101 was a 1 trick pony but i have to say my respect for him has grown. his schooling of mt and jc here reinforces that he does have a few more extra brain cells than i previously thought

You know fanny. Gaz should stick to Darts and MT should stick to thinking about whether he is going to continue to support man unted or if he is going to glory hunt for another team, say man city. You can see they are not the most sophisticated atheists, You can see from their posts there is no deep thought or sophistication.

They had the handicap of two against one and they still failed spectacularly. You know I shouldn't crow too much about destroying them, However it is fun when Big Mouth Atheists fall flat on their face, And gaz and monkety fell hard.


My work is done here. Maybe I will see you on one of the darts threads sometime. Later

[M H]

There's no winners in an argument about faith

[Monkety Tonkety]

I always thought darts101 was a 1 trick pony but i have to say my respect for him has grown. his schooling of mt and jc here reinforces that he does have a few more extra brain cells than i previously thought

You know fanny. Gaz should stick to Darts and MT should stick to thinking about whether he is going to continue to support man unted or if he is going to glory hunt for another team, say man city. You can see they are not the most sophisticated atheists, You can see from their posts there is no deep thought or sophistication.

They had the handicap of two against one and they still failed spectacularly. You know I shouldn't crow too much about destroying them, However it is fun when Big Mouth Atheists fall flat on their face, And gaz and monkety fell hard.


My work is done here. Maybe I will see you on one of the darts threads sometime. Later

Your 'work' is done if you include putting words into people's mouths, and repeating terms like 'dumb luck' as if they were factual.

Why would there need to be sophistication or deep thoughts? You haven't given us any of those yourself. I know that most intellectuals would be on my side and not yours. I'd love to see religious 'scholars' take on Dawkins. He'd school them, and so would Sagan, Russell and Hitchens if they were still alive.

Nobody has fallen flat on their face. Have you ever debated at uni, college, wherever? It is standard procedure that when one makes a claim, that they have to back it up. Unless you can explain to me how it is possible to prove something doesn't exist? I can't prove it 100% but I can be pretty certain based on the sheer lack of evidence of God existing. The sheer lack of evidence to support intelligent design or creationism. There is nothing to support your views. Nothing.

PS: I've been a United fan for 30 years so I don't need patronising on that score. I'll take anyone on in a football debate, just like any other subject that I have an interest in.

[Justin Credible]

he is trolling MT.

Or at least I do hope he is as asking someone to prove that something they dont believe in ,does not exist is the type of stuff that a simpleton would ask.
If he genuinely felt he was schooling people he would not have to mention it to garner attention, it would be obvious to all.