17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomNope. You need to look up the definition of "theory".
if there was overwhelming evidence, it would be fact, not theory. look, there is proof of natural selection and micro evolution, but there is no proof of macro evolution. you gotta love how the atheists in this forum come in here w/ their cocky attitudes like they are better than the theists when in the real world, theists outnumber atheists greatly. i would like to debate w/ somebody who did not think he/she was better than me.
A scientific theory is an explanation of a large body of facts. It is comprehensive, normally relatively complete, and despite a huge amount of testing, has never been shown to be substantively wrong.
Theories are bigger, more important, and probably truer than facts. Look down on facts, not theories.
You are using the common usage of the word theory (i.e. idea) and trying to equate the two. This is akin to calling someone who flies model planes a pilot, then comparing him with a 747 pilot, or an F16 pilot.
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomEven RBHill probably thinks he's better than you are.
if there was overwhelming evidence, it would be fact, not theory. look, there is proof of natural selection and micro evolution, but there is no proof of macro evolution. you gotta love how the atheists in this forum come in here w/ their cocky attitudes like they are better than the theists when in the real world, theists outnumber atheists greatly. i would like to debate w/ somebody who did not think he/she was better than me.
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomWhat would you like to debate?
if there was overwhelming evidence, it would be fact, not theory. look, there is proof of natural selection and micro evolution, but there is no proof of macro evolution. you gotta love how the atheists in this forum come in here w/ their cocky attitudes like they are better than the theists when in the real world, theists outnumber atheists greatly. i would like to debate w/ somebody who did not think he/she was better than me.
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by kirksey957well i have discovered that debating the EXISTENCE of god only gets me going in circles. if there was a way to disprove god, then there wouldnt be believers today. also, it is very hard to win a debate of god's existence because for an atheist to win, he only has to fight for a draw. he can simply say "prove it"; it is much like a country invading another country in war and the defending country fights to a draw and wins. when a problem comes to mind i will post another thread.
What would you like to debate?
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI'll give you a piece of advice: If you go around arguing against evolution, people are just going to treat you like an idiot. If you don't want to be treated like an idiot, then don't act like one.
do you feel safe when you make remarks like that from hundreds to thousands of miles away behind your computer?
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomDon't count on it! There is plenty of evidence against the existence of God and, in my "who's game?" thread, I'm trying to work out what kind of evidences would be required to convince a theist that God does not, in fact, exist.
if there was a way to disprove god, then there wouldnt be believers today.
The overwhelming answer seems to be that God existence is assumed, and no amount of evidence will change that fact.
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI see lots of move repetitions in the Spirituality forum, but people usually still seem to play for the win. Maybe we should offer or claim draws more often.
also, it is very hard to win a debate of god's existence because for an atheist to win, he only has to fight for a draw.
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomHow about something more interesting like who is a bigger idiot, Paris Hilton or Britney Spears?
well i have discovered that debating the EXISTENCE of god only gets me going in circles. if there was a way to disprove god, then there wouldnt be believers today. also, it is very hard to win a debate of god's existence because for an atheist to win, he only has to fight for a draw. he can simply say "prove it"; it is much like a country invading anot ...[text shortened]... g country fights to a draw and wins. when a problem comes to mind i will post another thread.
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, but people have brought science (at least in name) into the debate since then. try to keep up😛
What science? The original poster wasn't talking about science, he was talking about God, and some mumbo jumbo he had conjured up to make himself feel better about deluding himself.
17 Dec 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomPascal said there are only three kinds of people in the world: those who have sought God and found him, those who are seeking Him and have not found Him, and those who neither seek Him nor find Him. Pascal called the first class "reasonable (wise) and happy" -- reasonable because they seek and happy because they find. He calls the second class "reasonable and unhappy" -- reasonable because they seek and unhappy because they have not yet found. He called the third class "unreasonable and unhappy" -- unreasonable because they do not seek and unhappy because they do not find.
now i am stuck in a position where i believe in god(s) but idk who he/she/them/it is.