It was on my local news station last night that the existance of GOD HAS BEEN PROVEN!!! A scientist said, although very reluctantly, "I am forced to say that GOD DOES EXIST!!!" Even the scientists are talking about the truth now! No offense towards science because I am getting my masters degree in Biology! Now that it has been PROVEN, do you want to think about your religion? Well, in an athiests case, a non rerligion. Will you open up your heart to the truth? Will you open up your heart so that the almighty might help you? GOD LOVES YOU SO MUCH!!! All that GOD wants to do is to HELP you!!!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
This story has absolutely no credibility without a link to the scientist's argument. There are also a number of scientists that believe in God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the scientist has proven that God exists.
~C
Visit my blog.
If that were the case this guy would have made national headlines by now.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Pledge of Allegiance does not end with "Hail Satan"
Poking a dead raccoon is not research
Spitwads are not free speech
Hillbillies are people too
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/npsm18
I think that you are just trying to support your degenerating religion. It is outdated anyway. Religion is the teddy-bear of humanity that originated in primitive times when cavemen needed hope against the primordial darkness. It was needed when there was nothing else to do and is useless except to those who need a crutch against the big bad world.
Jelly-beans run rampant throughout the city of Los Angeles.
I am high everyday! High on the love that GOD gives me! Mabe you should try it!!!
What scientist are you talking about anyway? There is no credibility to this and it sounds like a complete rumor. Besides, plenty of scientists are christians. What type of scientist anyways? A radiology scientist can say this and you could be taking it out of context. Come back when you have some real proof, you know like the proof scientists have against creationism.
Jelly-beans run rampant throughout the city of Los Angeles.
I for one am completely sold on this story. It's about time somebody managed to provide conclusive proof. SWUrules, I salute you, and dare I say it, you rule too. Bravo.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
SWUrules, this is the conclusive evidence that I was talking about. People opened up your article to see HOW the scientists proved His existance.
and just look at all the great glowing credentials THIS scientist has!
Ok, this one I can't tell if it's sarcasm or not. I know TUFFGONG was being sarcastic, since he frequently goes against Christians in debates, but you don't. You should read DB's post later on... it says a lot about THIS scientist.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
Do you realize how completely ridiculous this post is?
Hey guess what. Last night I watched the news and a scientist proved that Santa Clause is real. Now little kids all around the world can rejoice and recieve the wonderful presents he has to give.
How exactly did this scientist "prove" God exists? What kind of scientist is he? Why aren't theists all over the world saying "I told you so"?
Denken. Nicht lesen.
You're just intolerant. You're a religious bigot. God exists, didn't you even read the blog? It proves it right there in bold black letters. A scientist proved it, it was on local news, duh...
You're just ignorant, and jealous coz we're going to heaven and you are not(in your face!!). Maybe they'll let you into purgatory, but with your attitude I don't even know.
"Last night I watched the news and a scientist proved that Santa Clause is real."
Everybody knows that anyway. Who do you think brings the Christmas presents? Duh...
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
I do not see that science and religion are perpetually exclusive; rather, it is my belief that science- even science of the most primitive times- was and remains the Creator of religion. It is through a desire to discover and understand the world around them that the first religious myths were created. It is through study of the living world that Jesus professed we would find "the Law of the True God" (Gospel of the Essenes). It is the mission of modern pagans to live in harmony with the laws of nature- the "laws of the gods." In effect, it is scientific discovery which sows the seed of religion- and the hands of the people who tend it which determine how it will grow.
SWUrules, this article would be more powerful if you stated what exactly the scientists achieved which proved that God is real. The article just tells readers that scientists proved He exists but fails to state how. But knowing how the subject was proven--the readers now have evidence to rely on along with your word.
You're just being pedantic. A scientist said it, who cares about why he said it? He's obviously right. Those Atheists are looking foolish now I can tell you. But it is typical that when somebody offers proof that God exists that people would come around asking 'how?'. It's such a cliche, this whole 'how?' business. He's a scientist, I mean OMG, he obviously used science, duh...
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
Tuffgong, I think you have proven your point. You can stop now. Thank you.
~C
Visit my blog.
Read the news.
Don't hate just coz I've seen the light...
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
and a few too many late night tv shows with David Letterman and Rosie ODonnell.
Bud Lite??!! Mines a Wild Turkey with crack pipe chaser and I'm far too busy editing greatest hits videos of Priests molesting children for the Catholic church to have time for David or Rosie, especially now that the Jehovahs and the Prods have started upping the ante in the child-porn stakes. No worry though, those fucking amateurs can't match the sheer volume and depravity the Catholics have to offer, me and my boys at the Vatican run shit.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
scientist's formulas; it would take other brilliant scientists to even comprehend! The nun has mathematical degrees and can't understand it; how can the average person? But I do believe this scientist. I knew God existed before I ever heard this. Its kind of like electricity; you don't have to understand how it works in order to use the stuff.
hey, your just mad because it proved you wrong. I mean for crying out loud tuffgong is right, a scientist said it so it obviously is true.
Finally, somebody else who sees sense.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
Is this a joke? O.o
'a scientist said it so it must be true'... surely you are joking.
Talk about blind faith... you do realize that many other scientists do NOT believe in God?
Dont worry I'm pretty sure they're joking :)
-----------------------------------------------------
The Pledge of Allegiance ends with "Hail Satan"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/npsm18
My guess is that SWUrules is talking about Frank Tipler. Dr. Tipler, a physicist from Tulane University, has recently published a book entitled The Physics of Christianity.
Dr. Tipler has published well-respected articles in peer-reviewed physics journals on cosmological problems. He is best known (in the scientific community) for his work with John Barrow on the Anthropic Principle.
It was first used to explain why the universe is as we see it today. Originally the explanation was that if it were any different then we wouldn't have existed to even ask the question.
That is now known as the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP). There is a Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) in which the universe is the way it is SO THAT we could come into existence and ask the question.
Tipler extended that view in an earlier book, The Physics of Immortality into what he called the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). According to that book if one uses the assumption that the universe will survive without end, then eventually some intelligent lifeform (perhaps a descendent of us) will inhabit the entire universe and make use of its potentially infinite computing power and will simulate everything that could possibly happen. In other words, you, me and everybody else will be "reborn" and do everything that we could possibly ever do.
Other scientists were not so much taken by Tipler's FAP. They called it CRAP ... The Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle.
In THE PHYSICS OF CHRISTIANITY, Tipler also goes off the deep end. While he does claim to have proven God's existence, no one else gives his "proof" any credence. For example, Lawrence Krauss, a better respected physicist, reviewed his book by saying "... I am tempted to describe Tipler's new book as nonsense - but that would be unfair to the concept of nonsense."
In his book Tipler claims that the mechanism behind Jesus' resurection was that his atoms spontaneously decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinons then spontaneously recombined. Tipler says that such an event is theoretically possible, but the odds of it happening is so astronomically small that it is a statistical impossibility. He gets by this conundrum by claiming that the universe could not possibly exist without Jesus so therefore it must have happened anyway.
With reasoning like this, you probably can see why his "proof" has not gathered much support. My personal opinion is that it is sad to see a once accomplished scientist go off into the realm of the certifiably loony. He has thrown away his critical reasoning. He has allowed his speculations on what may be theoretically possible to become absolute certainties in order to prop up his belief in what is patently ridiculous.
The only lesson I see to be learned from this is to beware of any argument you may hear based solely on the authority of the person making it. If the subject is important to you, before you go believing it try to understand the reasoning behind the argument. Then you will have a better basis for judging its validity.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
Thank you for explaining that, DB.
~C
Visit my blog.
Read the news.
was this satyre?
that more scientists (from their own calculations), were coming to a conclusion that that was some type of high power. i believe in God. Some of u are complaining that they haven't totally proved that there is a God. well... they haven't completely proven that there's no God either. there's more facts support God's existence, that the one's proving there's no God.
Things can be explained without the need for God. Plus, I'm pretty sure that you cannot prove something's nonexistence. You can only assume that it doesn't exist if you can't prove it does exist.
Do tell, what are the facts that support God's existence?
~C
Visit my blog.
Read the news.
While I am sure that there are new scientists that become believers, there are scientists that become agnostics and atheists as well. Polls have shown that the rate of belief among scientists in general has remained constant since the early 1900's. About 40% of scientists describe themselves as believers. Compare this to about 85% of the general population who do.
Furthermore, among members of the National Acandemy of Scientists which represents the most accomplished scientists, the belief rate drops to a mere 7%.
So when you claim that the universe is evidence for God's existence, think about this ... The people MOST LIKELY to NOT believe in God's existence are the very people who know the most about how the universe operates.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
but the voice through which the author wrote this peace seemed a bit immature...read my article "GOD DOES NOT NEED PROOF"
> It was on my local news station last night that
> the existance of GOD HAS BEEN PROVEN!!!
What was the local station?
Who was the scientist who said this?
Where can we find and review the research that led him to this conclusion?
In other words, please provide a valid citation for the story you are quoting, or if you are just being sarcastic, please let us in on the joke.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
A SCIENTIST said it percivale, what more do you need? If we can't believe scientists then we can't trust anyone.
True.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
...than I hold theologians. I don't expect theologians to know anything about research, publication or peer review. A scientist has no excuse in that regard.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
...a scientist said it, therefore it's true?
Wow. My brain hurts.
yup.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
FOX
Now...let's try again.
Can you or can you not provide a link to the original story, and/or to the statements and work of the "scientist" that you mentioned? This kind of imprecise reference followed by evasion doesn't help your case, my friend.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
Whats your GPA
You like ridicule
I'm about to ridicule you then
I am sorry I did not watch it on the news
BUT... I did hear them announce it
during the commercial
FOX 21 10 o'clock news
Only people with low
Self esteem
Ridicule
So are you fat...
Or just plain UGLY
I bet your both!!!
Percivale has been out of school for many years. Unlike most people, he is not here for the scholarship.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of people on here that won't pull grades into the question when asking you to back up your sources. You heard it, you didn't tell us where, you didn't provide any sort of link... that indicates that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. Percivale is just a lot more blunt than the rest of us are, and at times, it can be very harsh. He stays within the bounds of the site (albiet barely sometimes) and does not personally attack people. Let me repeat that. It is against the terms of the site to personally attack people. Consider this your warning.
But since you're so interested in GPA... my weighted GPA in high school was over a 5.0. My unweighted GPA was something like 3.92. My GPA in college (after 4 semesters) is a 3.98, from a single A- in a short-term history class (I am a biology major).
Fox 21 sounds familiar... I think you live around me/where I used to live. Good to know. And since you were too lazy to do the search yourself, here is the link for a (possible) video that you heard about on the news that you never watched. It really wasn't that difficult to pull it up, since it's the first thing that appears on a search of 'God proven'.
(currently first link on this page) http://www.whns.com/Global/SearchResults.asp?vendor=wss&qu=existence+of+God
~C
Visit my blog.
Read the news.
In other words, you are NOT able to support your blog with any verifiable source and so feel the need to resort to ad hominems in order to cover your inadequacies. Nice. One day perhaps I will meet a turbo christian who can actually back up something that he or she says. But today does not appear to be that day.
percivale
P.S. I'm 5'10", 250 lbs. I am heavily tattooed and my face is pleasant enough (according to my husband). I'm also hung like a horse...which goes a "long" way (if you'll pardon the pun) to shoring up my self-image. I graduated with honors from High School, and finished college with a 3.2 GPA and a B.A. in English (minors in Math and Political Science). Is there anything else you would like to ask while you are avoiding the issue at hand?
P.P.S. I guess I'll have to do the work for you. Is this the story that you were talking about?
http://www.wsmv.com/news/13358825/detail.html?subid=10106691
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
You are not married. You are in a (at best) monogomous same-sex relationship, which excludes you from, at least in 48 states, all the rights and privileges ESPECIALLY the title of marriage. I always found it humorous that, when I was among the gay community, they would see my ring and ask, "are you married? Yes? To a man or woman?". I'm married, which thus implies, under the current legislative climate that, since I'm a man, I'm inevitably married to a woman, according to the etymological and legal terms of the word.
ta ta.
The password is "peanut".
The obvious error is your "reasoning" is that the " title of marriage" is not an exclusively legal term. Because we live in a free country, my husband and I are quite within our rights as citizens to refer to each other in whatever manner we wish. There are a great many marriages that take place in this country that do not enjoy the legal benefit of the law, and my relationship with my husband falls into that category.
As for the applicability of the word "married" to same-sex couples, I would suggest that you refer to the current edition of Black's Law Dictionary (which is a you should at least know the definitive collection of terms relevant to legal discussions), which has included "same-sex marriage" in its definitons for almost a decade.
Perhaps if you were a little less focued on things that happened 2000 years ago, and a little more attentive to the world around you today, you would be less confused.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"Perhaps if you were a little less focued on things that happened 2000 years ago, and a little more attentive to the world around you today, you would be less confused."
Madmen never doubt their sanity.
The only one I find to be confused is you, bud. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. Only the kettle is a lot more solid!!!
...into this kind of bad behavior. But seriously, what the heck are you talking about? I mean, can you read and perhaps follow the conversation at least enough for your comments to make sense? Good grief.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Cuz you were made a fool
I mean, c'mon. I'm not the one avoiding the responsibility of backing up the things that he says. I'm not the one who has so obviously lost their composure and launched into a series of completely unrealted ad hominem attacks. I'm not the one who keeps switching speakers on one account with no warning. I am simply asking that you make you comments relevant, and at least try to defend you positions in a rational fashion.
Is it really so much to ask that when you make a claim, you back it up with something other than "you're going to hell for questioning me!"
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"Is it really so much to ask that when you make a claim, you back it up with something other than "you're going to hell for questioning me!""
Sure is odd how I am being accused of saying something that I do not remember myself saying.
Sounds like something someone else probably told you in the past.
Threats of hell do not encourage most people to believe in God. If anything, it makes them rebel against Him more.
If I were to tell you about God, I would tell you He is Love and that He wants you to spend eternity in heaven with Him. I would not scream threats of hell and brimstone at you. The hell fire and brimstone threats have been the tactics of Southern Baptists for the most part.
It is true that hell exists. But as my Father said, even if someone were to go to hell and then come back and tell it to others, they wont believe.
Like you, Percivale. You wont believe. And I suspect that you don't want to believe.
You can accuse me of things, ridicule me as much as you desire, lie and twist what I say as much as you want, but that doesn't change Truth.
If you meet me and forget me, you loose nothing; if you meet God and forget Him you loose everything.
You can find my response to you, below...
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
and I blew it!!!
Yes, you did make me mad and I got tired of your attitude so I vented and said some very unkind things.
But for the record, I apologize for hurting your feelings and saying harsh things to you.
It is not you that I have a problem with; it is the attitude I keep getting hit with when we are discussing God. It is like really really annoying to me. I wish you would at least not be so hostile and aggressive against God. What did He ever do to you anyway? He has some lousy pr people, but you can't blame Him for that. Blame them. **rolls eyes?**
> Actually I am supposed to walk in love...
> and I blew it!!!
>
> Yes, you did make me mad and I got tired
> of your attitude so I vented and said some
> very unkind things.
Ah, so it was my attitude that made you mad. Silly me. And here I thought it was your (or rather mostly your husband's) irrational ravings that set of this whole round of unpleasantness.
But for the record, I apologize for hurting your feelings and saying harsh things to you.
> It is not you that I have a problem with;
> it is the attitude I keep getting hit with
> when we are discussing God.
Have you ever considered that the reason you "keep getting hit" might be because there is an apparent, undefendable flaw in the position you are presenting? When you present an argument, and that argument is shown to contain a logical or other systematic error, you can rest assured that whenever you present that argument to anyone who is familiar with the conventions of rational debate is going to point it out. Insanity is sometimes described as doing the same thing over and over and expected every time to get a different result. If you don't fix the error in your argument, you will continue to face the same rebuttals--again and again--until you do.
> It is like really really annoying to me.
The feeling is mutual.
> I wish you would at least not be so hostile
> and aggressive against God. What did He ever
> do to you anyway?
Once again, you have arrogantly projected your beliefs onto someone does not share them. I am not hostile and aggressive towards "god" because I am very skeptical of the idea that such a being actually exists. I am being aggressive towards you in response to the irrational ideas and very aggressive demands that have been issued from your account.
> He has some lousy pr people, but you can't
> blame Him for that. Blame them. **rolls eyes?**
I do blame them, for what do we have by which to judge the value of christian philosophy except for the fruits that it produces. As the bible says...
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (Matthew 7:16)
One of our founding fathers gave us an answer to that question...
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." ~ James Madison
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Though he points out one side of Christianity:
""During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." ~ James Madison"
He fails to point out the positive fruits of Christianity. I would have to point out that he is looking at the negative aspects but not balancing it out with the positive.
Christianity is what brought about the charities and humanitarian agencies that assisted people. Hospitals, food pantries, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, all were born out of the tenets of Christianity.
...to make up for even ONE murder?
While I am sure that the subtleties of his statement is lost on you, this exchange has been a perfect example of "ignorance and servility in the laity."
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
"this exchange has been a perfect example of "ignorance and servility in the laity.""
I couldn't have described this conversation w/you much better myself.
...since I have supported my arguments, while you have not, and as an atheist by definition I do not belong to any "laity."
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
it can be a *bitch* for those who don't know how. Goeffrey Dommer was baptized while in prison for his heinous crimes. I have no reason to doubt he's in heaven now. You as a carnally-minded individual wouldn't understand how God can be so merciful. but then, percy, we're not surprised at that.
The password is "peanut".
...and it is interesting to note that being baptized in prison was not his first religious experience. Dahmer's family were member of the church of Christ (*gasp* Isn't that the denomination that you belong to, ljmitchell?), and he was raised in the church actively until he was five, and after that spent a great deal of time watching televangelists while in the care of his grandmother during his later childhood.
Dahmer was born into a family of devout members of the Stone-Campbell denomination known as the "church of Christ" or "Churches of Christ." He was an active churchgoer until the age of 5. After that, Dahmer was never again actively religious or a regular churchgoer until after his arrest and imprisonment. After being imprisoned for his crimes, Dahmer sought out the church of his childhood and petitioned to be re-baptized in the Church of Christ.
http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Jeffrey_Dahmer.html
I asked Jeffrey what his religious background was. He explained that his parents had attended the church of Christ when he was a small child and continued to attend until he was about 5 years old. From that time on, he had not had any religious contact at all except for television and the times he lived with his grandmother. He did note that his father had been a faithful member of the church when Jeffrey was a child.
http://www.tornadohills.com/dahmer/life.htm
In fact, most of the psycholgical profiles of Dahmer point to his exposure to fundamentalist views about homosexuality as one of the underlying issues which caused his introversion and that a religiously-motivated hatred of his own homosexuality was one source of his murderous actions. They also predicted at the time of his trial that Dahmer was met the model of the kind of prisoner that would undergo a religious conversion once he was in prison.
Serial killer Jeffrey L. Dahmer killed his victims out of anger at his homosexuality and kept body parts as trophies, like a hunter, a psychiatrist testified in Dahmer's sanity trial Thursday.
"I don't believe his behavior was sexually motivated," psychiatrist George Palermo said. "I believe Jeffrey Dahmer killed his victims because he hated homosexuality."
Concerning Dahmer's difficulty in coming to grips with his homosexuality, Palermo indicated that was a problem since adolescence because he believed his family could not accept it. The difficulty evolved into a hatred over the years which later led to the killings, Palermo said.
Jeffrey Dahmer is likely to turn to religion in prison, but 40 years from now he probably will be psychologically unchanged, psychiatrist Basil Jackson said Sunday.
Jackson, who has counseled jailed televangelist Jim Bakker, among others, was asked for his assessment of how Dahmer will function in incarceration.
"I would anticipate that he would become deeply religious," Jackson said. "There's already signs of that."
"This is a very common method of adaptation in an isolated environment. He has the potential for the quasi-spiritual, as evidenced by the temples. He has been reading the New Testament."
There was testimony at Dahmer's trial about how he had planned to build a temple in his apartment, using skulls of his victims.
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/dahmer.htm
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Dahmer. you ever notice how many people in prison or jail have sudden conversions, whether or not they had ever been to church before?
You've missed the point, that his ability to change his life after having committed such heinous acts is part of the mystery of Christ. That the coC is responsible for his behavior is rediculous.
The password is "peanut".
...since conversions of this sort are in fact a common, predictable response in people undergoing long-term incarceration. There's no mystery to it at all. It is just a manner in which sociopathic personalities respond to their punishment and attempt to escape the emotional responsiblity of their crimes.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Please leave these kind of insults to 3rd graders.
You like to ridicule
Yet you seem stuck much like an everyday fool
Who spouts at the mouth
And closes up their brain
Insults of a 3rd grader
Guess we know you gpa.
Please stop with the poem comments
It makes me want to vomit
It looks like you are immature
Resorting to name calling
I suggest you should act your age
Don't say anything at all
Maybe this child like act will fade
Now without futher a do
This link should be good for you too: http://www.progressiveu.org/005824-my-5-steps-of-how-to-comment-on-blogs
Ugh, last time I'm doing that.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Pledge of Allegiance ends with "Hail Satan"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/npsm18
Are you talking to me or SWUrules?
I was just bored...i couldn't resist :)
I was talking to her, see the reply button. And what if I was wanna make something of it? Eh? EH?!
I really should cut down on the sugars,lol :)
-----------------------------------------------------
The Pledge of Allegiance ends with "Hail Satan"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/npsm18
yeah it was something to me, now what you gonna do, HUH? HUH?
Ok, im done now, lol
He will try to discredit your news source so no one will even consider it to be a possibility. Then when you tell him how awesome he is for doing it he will actually believe you are sincere, though in truth, he is unable to discredit your source entirely. He is very delusional. Believes he is all that and a bag of chips too!!!
...if you took the time (as I usually do) to acutally check out the sources you cite before hanging your argument on a source that isn't really all that credible.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
are rejected by you as not being so.
How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Can you name or point to an objectively credible source that I have rejected?
percviale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
You claim, for one, that Dr. Carl Baugh is not a scientist. You even believed I fell for your load of bs when it was pretty clear that I was mocking you for your inability to discredit my source...and that was made even more clear in a later blog entry when I told you that I was only pulling your leg; in other words, I knew you thought you had me over a barrel by discrediting my source but YOU WERE WRONG. And you've been wrong your whole life. Go back and re-examine and you won't see what I mean(you're too ignorant, arrogant, and full of pride). Maybe if evolution were true, I'd believe that it had found a way to keep idiots like you from reproducing. However, I know that isn't the way it works.
How am I "wrong?" The man fabricated his supposed scientific credentials.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
Pacific International University is an unaccredited, conservative, Christian university and seminary located in Springfield, Missouri. 1989 alumnus of Pacific International University Carl Baugh was the university president.[1] The school has been referred to as a diploma mill.[2][3]
The university had no accreditation and offered doctorates for a lump sum payment.[4] The fees ranged up to 2,500-3,000 USD for a Doctor of Theological Studies degree. The school has an "administrative office," but no campus, so no classes are held on site.[5] There are no minimum educational requirements to apply other than two references, one academic and one church related.[6] Nonetheless, the university noted it "is in good standing with the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, Inc. (North Carolina) and is also a member of the Association of Christian Colleges and Theological Schools (Louisiana)," but for legal reasons makes it known "these memberships do NOT constitute accreditation by the U.S. Office of Education."[7] In the United States without recognition from the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation to approve the accreditation agency such accreditations are "bogus" to the academic community.[8]
While the school does not offer physical classes, only correspondence education, the web site lists faculty, but does not mention where the staff received their doctorates, what subjects they specialize in, and whether they are associate professors or have full professorships. Moreover, Baugh received a Ph.D. from Pacific International University in the Fall of 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_International_University#Criticism_...
I'm really not sure how you think that putting up a man who has been widely discredited due to both his dishonesty and bogus "research" somehow shores up your position.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
It's not worth it! You attack me just because I tried to tell you what I heard on the news! If you want to blame someone for not giving evidence then blame it on the news station! This is why I don't like to converse about religion! I just get really heated when people say that GOD does not exist!
PS My GPA is 3.3 (Not bad for someone who had a 3.9 until they took honors classes!)
Well you said it was proven. And then talked about how we need Jesus. I dont know, but I think that what also set people off.
Here's what you said:
"Now that it has been PROVEN, do you want to think about your religion? Well, in an athiests case, a non rerligion. Will you open up your heart to the truth? Will you open up your heart so that the almighty might help you?"
You dont see anything wrong with saying that when you don't cite the article/site?
-----------------------------------------------------
The Pledge of Allegiance ends with "Hail Satan"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/npsm18
I do not care about your GPA, I was making a point.
And if you don't like conversing religion, then don't put up religious blogs or put up comments on them.
If you aren't prepared to responsibly cite, source and defend the things you post in your blogs, then expect to be called onto the carpet for it. And, if you can't handle even the most basic critical challenges to your ideas, then you really aren't intellectually prepared for life in the blogoshpere, anway.
percivale
-------------------------
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816
"Irresponsible blogging...
Submitted by percivale on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 12:50pm.
If you aren't prepared to responsibly cite, source and defend the things you post in your blogs, then expect to be called onto the carpet for it. And, if you can't handle even the most basic critical challenges to your ideas, then you really aren't intellectually prepared for life in the blogoshpere, anway.
percivale"
This applies to you as well, now does it not.
...but then I rarely say anything that I'm not absolutely sure that I can back up if pressed. Just stamping your feet like a two year old wont make the fact that like the original blogger to whom the comment above was directed, you have been presented with a number of specific challenges that you have failed to address, and which you have specifically attempted to obscure and avoid through the use of hysteria and ad hominem attacks.
Perhaps if your rebuttals contained something more than these childish and utterly pointless quips, we might be able to take them more seriously.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Are you referring to all homosexuals or are you speaking of a certain group of idiots posing as students and calling themselves atheists? Just curious. Oh--and was I supposed to be in any way put in my place and "all that jazz" (in your words) or was I supposed to be humiliated??? Tell me so I can adjust my attitude for you!!!LMAO again!!! This is too much humor!
Perhaps you've never heard of the use of "royal" pronouns. By "we" I am referring to the membership of ProU (which should have been obvious, but oh well), and more specifically to the other atheists to whom many of your irrational disparagments also encompass.
I'm not sure where you get the "posing as students" thing, though. ProU does not limit its membership to students, and I have been quite open (both in this and in other blogs) about my age and education.
As for humor, the selective manner in which you interpret the ironic as literal and the literal as humorous leads me to believe that you aren't very well versed in that concept, either.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
And that right there, just ended this little fit about it all.
Thank you, percivale
That scientist may say that but with no proof behind his "god has been proven." Nor do I see proof on your post. This is merely a post for you to get many people to reply and view. Ingenious huh?
cuz u've been proven wrong... i bet more scientists think that way.
if we were sooo focused on 2,000 years ago, gay marriage wouldn't be discussed.
i guess we're all confused here, especially you!
cheers!