Proof of God: "The banana fits in your ..." - Atheist Nightmare

[Badal]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25716706]Back on point, I wonder if that man knows that the yellow banana was created by humans over a few hundred years, not naturally there
making his whole argument showing that humans themselves will either evolve to there environment or just change the environment to make life easier for them, no god needed[/QUOTE]

Created by humans over a few hundred years? There's evidence of banana cultivation from 5000-8000 BCE. I doubt they had banana making technologies back then.

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Badal;25716814]Created by humans over a few hundred years? There's evidence of banana cultivation from 5000-8000 BCE. I doubt they had banana making technologies back then.[/QUOTE]

perhaps it was 1000nds but the normal seedless banana did not naturally evolve

[editline]29th October 2010[/editline]

[QUOTE=Mutex;25716768]Bro, what exactly are you doing? Because from an outside prospective you're just being a dick. What do you gain from arguing an argument that cannot be won? You can not infiltrate the minds of others, especially through some internet forum.[/QUOTE]

proving a statement wrong is not some horrible thing, its just showing how silly that man is, while if you look at the comments made on the front page you can see people doing worse then that

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Badal;25715629]Scientists and Creationists could both learn a lot from each other if they weren't so busy insulting each others beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the creationists could learn to not be mouth breathing retards and the Scientists could learn how to talk to mouth breathing retards.

[Badal]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25716882]perhaps it was 1000nds but the normal seedless banana did not naturally evolve[/quote]

Ah, you are correct about seedless bananas.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25716882]proving a statement wrong is not some horrible thing, its just showing how silly that man is, while if you look at the comments made on the front page you can see people doing worse then that[/QUOTE]

The problem is it is almost impossible to "prove" something wrong in a theological discussion. We just don't know.

[editline]29th October 2010[/editline]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25716927]Yeah, the creationists could learn to not be mouth breathing retards and the Scientists could learn how to talk to mouth breathing retards.[/QUOTE]

:sigh:

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Badal;25716814]Created by humans over a few hundred years? There's evidence of banana cultivation from 5000-8000 BCE. I doubt they had banana making technologies back then.[/QUOTE]

Ever hear of an Auroch? Yeah, turns out we cultivate shit long before it's domesticated, who knew?

[editline]29th October 2010[/editline]

[QUOTE=Badal;25716943]Ah, you are correct about seedless bananas.

The problem is it is almost impossible to "prove" something wrong in a theological discussion. We just don't know.

[editline]29th October 2010[/editline]

:sigh:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's because it's impossible to prove something that has no evidence or ground rules wrong.

That's like saying it's hard to punch a ghost, therefor they're automatically the boxing champions of the world.

[Badal]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25716954]Ever hear of an Auroch? Yeah, turns out we cultivate shit long before it's domesticated, who knew?[/QUOTE]

He didn't specify seedless bananas in the original post. I read it as humans created Auroch, but with bananas.

[Mutex]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25716882]
proving a statement wrong is not some horrible thing, its just showing how silly that man is, while if you look at the comments made on the front page you can see people doing worse then that[/QUOTE]

Ignoring whatever else was said to you. Your original point in this thread was to prove to some guy that what he believes in is wrong. I think its like one of the top ten rules of the internet that you don't engage in arguments about religion. Not because its not a valid topic. Not because its a touchy subject. Because it leads nowhere and it is impossible to change the minds of others. There is not a fact or series of facts that will instantly change someone's mind about God. It's something they have to think about and discover in their own time.

[Jaehead]

Don't start this again.

(I'm talking to Scorpio by the way.)

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Badal;25716973]He didn't specify seedless bananas in the original post. I read it as humans created Auroch, but with bananas.[/QUOTE]

The Auroch would be the wild banana in this comparison.

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Badal;25716943]

The problem is it is almost impossible to "prove" something wrong in a theological discussion. We just don't know.
[/QUOTE]
well we do have records or bananas that show it cant be that old also being seedless is not something evolution would normally happen in an evolution stand point

[Badal]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25716954]
Yeah, that's because it's impossible to prove something that has no evidence or ground rules wrong.

That's like saying it's hard to punch a ghost, therefor they're automatically the boxing champions of the world.[/QUOTE]

You can neither prove or disprove the boxing skills of a ghost, that is my point.

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25716927]Yeah, the creationists could learn to not be mouth breathing retards and the Scientists could learn how to talk to mouth breathing retards.[/QUOTE]

thats not something you want to say if you want people to agree with you

[Badal]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25716986]The Auroch would be the wild banana in this comparison.[/QUOTE]

That's what I meant.

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Badal;25717008]You can neither prove or disprove the boxing skills of a ghost, that is my point.[/QUOTE]

well then you say you simply don't know and don't believe until you get proof that the ghost boxes good or bad

[Badal]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25717037]well then you say you simply don't know and don't believe until you get proof that the ghost boxes good or bad[/QUOTE]

That's the thing though, it's entirely possible to believe that the ghost is good [i]or[/i] bad at boxing. Neither belief is correct or incorrect because neither side has proof.

[imasillypiggys]

you dont need to disprove something that doesnt have proof though

[Jaehead]

Yeah, but that argument can go both ways

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Jaehead;25717210]Yeah, but that argument can go both ways[/QUOTE]

by having 2 options that both have no proof then you should find a 3rd option or just no believe in those options

[Badal]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25717192]you dont need to disprove something that doesnt have proof though[/QUOTE]

[quote]proving a statement wrong is not some horrible thing, its just showing how silly that man is[/quote]

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Badal;25717241][editline]29th October 2010[/editline]

There is no third option in the context of atheism vs theism, unless I am overlooking something.[/QUOTE]

I was just saying in general, for theism vs. atheism its just a simple is there proof of god, and its either yes so you believe or no so you should not

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=Badal;25717241][editline]29th October 2010[/editline]

There is no third option in the context of atheism vs theism, unless I am overlooking something.[/QUOTE]

Hello, agnosticism?

[Badal]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25717396]Hello, agnosticism?[/QUOTE]

That's what I get for getting into religious debates in the wee hours of the morning.

[Mutex]

No one can post something about fucking religion without some pair of assholes shitting all over the thread. Mods need to crack down on these threads.

Take your stupid round-a-bout debates to some MSN chatroom or something.

[Badal]

[QUOTE=Mutex;25717451]No one can post something about fucking religion without some pair of assholes shitting all over the thread. Mods need to crack down on these threads.

Take your stupid round-a-bout debates to some MSN chatroom or something.[/QUOTE]

The purpose of a forum is to debate. You are welcome to not read the thread.

[Missing User]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;25717396]Hello, agnosticism?[/QUOTE]

agnosticism is the belief that nobody can know whether or not god exists

it does not replace theism or atheism as a stance on theology. if you do not believe in god or are unsure, you are an atheist- regardless of whether or not you are also an agnostic.

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Mutex;25717451]No one can post something about fucking religion without some pair of assholes shitting all over the thread. Mods need to crack down on these threads.

Take your stupid round-a-bout debates to some MSN chatroom or something.[/QUOTE]
I think your to late because that happened and is now done with, unless your talking about the civil discussion were having right now

[Badal]

[QUOTE=Savaril;25717479]agnosticism is the belief that nobody can know whether or not god exists

it does not replace theism or atheism as a stance on theology. if you do not believe in god or are unsure, you are an atheist- regardless of whether or not you are also an agnostic.[/QUOTE]

Agnosticism is "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."

It's another debate altogether whether agnosticism is theistic or atheistic, although by pure definition it is neither.

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Badal;25717514]Agnosticism is "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."

It's another debate altogether whether agnosticism is theistic or atheistic, although by pure definition it is neither.[/QUOTE]
you can be unsure about something but still not believe it

[Mutex]

[QUOTE=imasillypiggys;25717494]I think your to late because that happened and is now done with, unless your talking about the civil discussion were having right now[/QUOTE]

Are you smoking weed right now? Arguments can be civil, that's not the point at all. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the video. It only remotely relates to the topic of religion.

When someone posts something about religion it does not give you free reign to cover the entire topic of religion. Just look at the crap you and Badal are posting right now. Agnosticism? Who cares, take it to a chat room. This is a forum where you present and discuss ideas [b]related to the OP[/b] not off-hand crap.

[QUOTE=Badal;25717476]The purpose of a forum is to debate. You are welcome to not read the thread.[/QUOTE]

I'll say what I said to him, are you smoking weed right now? Your sentence is simply false. The purpose of a forum is not to debate anything at any time. It must relate to the topic. It's like someone posting a thread specifically about cars and then going on back and forth for 3 pages about fucking motorcycles. [b]The thread is about cars not motorcycles[/b].

Alas, you are welcome to start a thread witch orients around whatever you want. Hijacking some random thread that seems close to what you want is not the right move.

[imasillypiggys]

[QUOTE=Mutex;25717628]Are you smoking weed right now? Arguments can be civil, that's not the point at all. What you're talking about has nothing to do with the video. It only remotely relates to the topic of religion.

When someone posts something about religion it does not give you free reign to cover the entire topic of religion. Just look at the crap you and Badal are posting right now. Agnosticism? Who cares, take it to a chat room. This is a forum where you present and discuss ideas [b]related to the OP[/b] not off-hand crap.

I'll say what I said to him, are you smoking weed right now? Your sentence is simply false. The purpose of a forum is not to debate anything at any time. It must relate to the topic. It's like someone posting a thread specifically about cars and then going on back and forth for 3 pages about fucking motorcycles. [b]The thread is about cars not motorcycles[/b].[/QUOTE]

If a forum cant go off into a tangent then we cant learn anything, every discussion branches off one way or another