"I believe in God . . .

[Angry Floof]

Yeah, that's the ticket. We'll just go with that. No need to actually read my comments or anything.

Well, if he gets TOO engaged in your post, he might actually understand how evolution works. Then where would he be?

Compromising his eternal soul, no doubt.

 

[Kharakov]

It must be, it has to be, there is a God who provided humans reasoning to ordain thoughts and come out with laws and more.

You mean the same God that created the  Mandelbrot set without  complex numbers or  transcendental functions?

Well yes, obviously. That's why everything in nature is fractal. Galaxies are just very large atoms with bigass electron clouds.
Complex behaviors emerge from very simple rules/algorithms for the same reason. Whodathunkit? Why, GAWD, of course!

 

[Juma]

your view of morality is built on sand: the supposition that morality must be objective is baseless.

Ironically you sound pretty objective about me being wrong. Make your case and we'll see.

Why would that be ironic? It is obvious. There is nothing objectively wrong with making people or animals suffer.
With a specific goal in mind it may be more or less effective.
Thus morals are depending on your goals.

 

[Rhea]

...
It must be, it has to be, there is a God who provided humans reasoning to ordain thoughts and come out with laws and more.

As former poster Wayne Delia would say:

"Just not in anyway you can demonstrate."

You are here and you can reason. No other demonstration is needed.

I once read a great blog by some minister or other on Christians sharing false memes and news on facebook. The gist:

Don’t display how shallow is your threshold of evidence for belief. Otherwise people will ask, “well what else has he accepted without evidence that might be equally false - the resurrection?”

So yeah, when you show how little you care for HOW you believe a thing to be true, and you demonstrate belief in something that can be demonstrated to not be true, then it calls into question where you are a reliable witness for anything. This here “There must be because I’m not curious enough to think about alternatives,” kinda makes everything you believe in to be probably equally false.

 

[humbleman]

You are here and you can reason. No other demonstration is needed.

I once read a great blog by some minister or other on Christians sharing false memes and news on facebook. The gist:

Don’t display how shallow is your threshold of evidence for belief. Otherwise people will ask, “well what else has he accepted without evidence that might be equally false - the resurrection?”

So yeah, when you show how little you care for HOW you believe a thing to be true, and you demonstrate belief in something that can be demonstrated to not be true, then it calls into question where you are a reliable witness for anything. This here “There must be because I’m not curious enough to think about alternatives,” kinda makes everything you believe in to be probably equally false.

OK.

We have 12 women saying Mr. Trump made or attempted to make sexual advances on them.

A Democrat congresswoman says she "believe them". And I say, I don't believe them. Some say they believe them, others say they don't believe them. He says she says.

Others ask for impeachment based on those "testimonies".

Lots of wrong use of the extensive list of words of the rich English language.

Lets go by parts.

The difference between the case of president Clinton and president Trump is that president Clinton committed his abuses when he was the president in charge. On the other hand, the accusations against president Trump are said to happen before he became the US president.

The case of Monica Lewinsky was not taken as serious as to take action against president Clinton by "lack of facts". However, after president Clinton denied and denied any sexual contact with Ms. Monica, she said she has a blue dress with some sperm from the president.

The whole argument transformed itself into an impeachment case. Evidence. Without evidence no impeachment case should have happened.

With the case of president Trump, there is not a single evidence, then, no impeachment case can be opened.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Witness testimonies and victims declarations.

By lack of understanding of the English language, many people say that there are 12 witness (or testimonies) against president Trump, when such is not true. There are 12 statements made by assumed victims of sexual abuse against president Trump.

PROBLEM: No witness corroborating the accusations.

A witness is an individual who was present when the abuses happened. If the victim cried one night and a friend asked her what happened, and the victim says she was sexually abused, the friend is a witness of the cries but not a witness of sexual abuse. The testimony won't validate the claims of the victim, because the victim might was crying for a different cause and just made up a story.

_______________________________________________________________________________

The case of resurrection.

The claims are not made by Jesus. You don't read letters of Jesus saying he was resurrected.

You read of witness who saw him after he was resurrected. These are direct witness who saw him alive again after he was killed. Their testimonies are credible, they were there.

Look at this, if Jesus wrote a letter saying he was resurrected, his declaration might or might not be credible without at least one witness.

You complaint that there are witnesses but there is no evidence.

_________________________________________________________

Religion is not founded with evidence but belief.

You demand for evidence when in religion such is not considered the main rule.

You complaint the same demand in a science forum, and you are exactly at the right place to do it, because the case of resurrection can't be proved, at least thru scientific methods.

So, if you try to mix one with the another, actually you are the one making the mistake, religion is oil and science is water.

 

[Keith&Co.]

With the case of president Trump, there is not a single evidence, then, no impeachment case can be opened.

Um, no.
There is no requirement for evidence in an impeachment.
They just need the votes.

It's not a felony or misdemeanor trial. The only thing involved in an impeachment is the question of whether or not this man should be president. There's no statute of limitations, either. They can impeach Trump for the various lawsuits he lost long before he became President, just because it shows a lack of integrity and reflects poorly on the office of the Presidency.

The very first impeachment kicked a judge off the bench for being the wrong political party. And an alcoholic.

 

[humbleman]

With the case of president Trump, there is not a single evidence, then, no impeachment case can be opened.

Um, no.
There is no requirement for evidence in an impeachment.
They just need the votes.

It's not a felony or misdemeanor trial. The only thing involved in an impeachment is the question of whether or not this man should be president. There's no statute of limitations, either. They can impeach Trump for the various lawsuits he lost long before he became President, just because it shows a lack of integrity and reflects poorly on the office of the Presidency.

The very first impeachment kicked a judge off the bench for being the wrong political party. And an alcoholic.

To make a case for impeachment you need evidence. You yourself have explained it very well.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, you don't. You need nothing more than an argument. They can impeach him for rumors, iffn they so choose.

 

[Atheos]

The case of resurrection.

The claims are not made by Jesus. You don't read letters of Jesus saying he was resurrected.

You read of witness who saw him after he was resurrected. These are direct witness who saw him alive again after he was killed. Their testimonies are credible, they were there.

Look at this, if Jesus wrote a letter saying he was resurrected, his declaration might or might not be credible without at least one witness.

You complaint that there are witnesses but there is no evidence.

These are the sort of preachy claims that I find difficult to abide nowadays. Preachers often trumpet statements like this from the pulpit even though they are not true. I don't think they're lying because they really believe these things to be true if only because they've heard others say them so often and with such conviction. I used to say the same things myself from the pulpit, so I know whereof I speak.

But these claims are just not true. We don't have any eyewitness accounts of any of these things. We don't even have accounts written by anyone whom we can be sure met anyone who was an eyewitness to any of these things. Not even anything that claims to have talked to someone who met an eyewitness.

What we have is anonymous documents, the first of which appeared circa 75 c.e., in or around Rome. We have no idea who wrote the "gospel" commonly called "Mark," but it's fairly certain that the writers were unfamiliar with the geography of the area they wrote about. It tells of a magic Jew who lived some 40-50 years earlier in a land 1500 miles away. And it doesn't tell of anyone who saw the resurrected hero of the story. That part of the narratives did not appear for another decade or more.

Those later narratives include descriptions of witnesses to this and other unlikely events, but they also contain fact-checkable details that have been thoroughly debunked, such as Herod's order to execute all male children under the age of 2, and Quirinius's "musical chairs" census which never happened. We don't know much about who these writers were, but we know one thing for sure: They either didn't bother doing any fact-checking or they didn't care whether they were telling the truth. It is not reasonable to expect rational people to be swayed by the (possibly fabricated) presence of witnesses in their narratives. If the whole story was made up these "witnesses" are merely additional characters in the story.

I no longer accept these claims for the same reasons I never accepted the eyewitness claims that Joseph Smith performed miracles in his role as the founder of the Mormon religious movement. I think this is a rational position to hold.

 

[bilby]

The case of resurrection.

The claims are not made by Jesus. You don't read letters of Jesus saying he was resurrected.

You read of witness who saw him after he was resurrected. These are direct witness who saw him alive again after he was killed. Their testimonies are credible, they were there.

Look at this, if Jesus wrote a letter saying he was resurrected, his declaration might or might not be credible without at least one witness.

You complaint that there are witnesses but there is no evidence.

These are the sort of preachy claims that I find difficult to abide nowadays. Preachers often trumpet statements like this from the pulpit even though they are not true. I don't think they're lying because they really believe these things to be true if only because they've heard others say them so often and with such conviction. I used to say the same things myself from the pulpit, so I know whereof I speak.

But these claims are just not true. We don't have any eyewitness accounts of any of these things. We don't even have accounts written by anyone whom we can be sure met anyone who was an eyewitness to any of these things. Not even anything that claims to have talked to someone who met an eyewitness.

What we have is anonymous documents, the first of which appeared circa 75 c.e., in or around Rome. We have no idea who wrote the "gospel" commonly called "Mark," but it's fairly certain that the writers were unfamiliar with the geography of the area they wrote about. It tells of a magic Jew who lived some 40-50 years earlier in a land 1500 miles away. And it doesn't tell of anyone who saw the resurrected hero of the story. That part of the narratives did not appear for another decade or more.

Those later narratives include descriptions of witnesses to this and other unlikely events, but they also contain fact-checkable details that have been thoroughly debunked, such as Herod's order to execute all male children under the age of 2, and Quirinius's "musical chairs" census which never happened. We don't know much about who these writers were, but we know one thing for sure: They either didn't bother doing any fact-checking or they didn't care whether they were telling the truth. It is not reasonable to expect rational people to be swayed by the (possibly fabricated) presence of witnesses in their narratives. If the whole story was made up these "witnesses" are merely additional characters in the story.

I no longer accept these claims for the same reasons I never accepted the eyewitness claims that Joseph Smith performed miracles in his role as the founder of the Mormon religious movement. I think this is a rational position to hold.

If I tell you the story of Clark Kent, who can fly through the air unassisted, you assume that it's fiction, because people cannot do that.

If I then tell you that it must be true, because there are eyewitness accounts from Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen, does that make the story more plausible? According to the Christians, it does. We have eyewitness, and we even know their names!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I need to step in to point out that neither Lois Lane nor Jimmy Olsen would ever say, either on or off the record, that Clark Kent can fly. Not only are they decent people who can be trusted with a secret identity, but one of the main reasons behind having a secret identity is to protect your friends and loved ones and therefore blabbing about that secret would put them smack dab in the cross hairs of every supervillian out there who wants to exploit Superman's weaknesses.

 

[bilby]

I need to step in to point out that neither Lois Lane nor Jimmy Olsen would ever say, either on or off the record, that Clark Kent can fly. Not only are they decent people who can be trusted with a secret identity, but one of the main reasons behind having a secret identity is to protect your friends and loved ones and therefore blabbing about that secret would put them smack dab in the cross hairs of every supervillian out there who wants to exploit Superman's weaknesses.

What, you think they are actually fooled by that silly 'wearing glasses' disguise?

I am sure they wouldn't say anything in front of Clark, because they are humoring him. But I have no doubt that when he's not around, they share a laugh with the other citizens of Metropolis, all of whom can see right through the so-called 'disguise'.

Only Superman thinks that earthlings are dumb enough to fall for such an obvious ruse.

 

[Atheos]

Hey, leave us not forget he also tousles his hair. The glasses may seem innocuous but these aren't just ordinary glasses. These glasses have thick, black frames. Combine that with tousled hair and even your own mother won't recognize you.

 

[SLD]

Hey, leave us not forget he also tousles his hair. The glasses may seem innocuous but these aren't just ordinary glasses. These glasses have thick, black frames. Combine that with tousled hair and even your own mother won't recognize you.

Unless your Jesus!

 

[bilby]

Hey, leave us not forget he also tousles his hair. The glasses may seem innocuous but these aren't just ordinary glasses. These glasses have thick, black frames. Combine that with tousled hair and even your own mother won't recognize you.

Unless your Jesus!

Unless Atheos's Jesus what?

 

[SLD]

Hey, leave us not forget he also tousles his hair. The glasses may seem innocuous but these aren't just ordinary glasses. These glasses have thick, black frames. Combine that with tousled hair and even your own mother won't recognize you.

Unless your Jesus!

Unless Atheos's Jesus what?

Unless you are Jesus

 

[bilby]

Unless Atheos's Jesus what?

Unless you are Jesus

No, I'm not Jesus; And I'm certainly not Atheos's Jesus. If he wants one, he can get his own.