David: "There has never been a reliably recorded supernatural occurrence, ever."

I find that very very puzzling, especially when I'm sure what we played was something that is repeatable and verifiable.

I shall say no more until I get my hand on those "Ouija boards", and persuade some people to get involved :-)

a good suggestion(GZ)its more difficult for a one finger typer leaning on his other arm,but i will keep it in mind in editing

i will respond to the Athiest,who are so clever they need the word theist for their name recognition(lol)

i will post a bit of'davids'post to make a point...>>a retreat into spooky stuff not so easily dismissed can occur.>>

this for aTHEIST is a big admission[im not sure he will go so far as to prove it(of course]but he put it in writing,that it is not''SO EASILY DISMISSED'(LOL)

at least he recognises the satan-clause/easter-bunny delusion,thus has got some logic(even if he dosnt have any responses to questions when he is asked to name/names]but back to david the a)THIEST

>>The big difference between Atheists and those of faith is that we require evidence<<<..thats a great one..you are great at demanding proof(from others)yet are unable to prove your own case(LOL)its sad how we can so easilly and glibly an'aTHIEST'can put others down and yet not reply their'opponants'reasonable request for proof

The ANTI_religious indoctrination process,as is seen in other posts david has made,interferes with his evidence seeking and allows him to accept aTHIEST propositions such as evolution,without evidence.

A special case is made for'ANTI-religious'concepts and as others seem to believe them,also not requiring evolution(et-al)supply proof,others are influenced to believe likewise.[unable to make their case based on'gaps'in their own'proofs')but i will let the a-THIEST have the last word

>>and we can feel left out and maybe a little fearful if we do not,...penalty is no heaven for not accepting a god’s existence or even ending up in a hell for eternity.>>

see how an aTHIEST believes'not'going to a fictitious place,is based on their own fears/delusions(

had he taken time to read the link,he would have seen how even the'most vile'can yet redeem their earned aTHIEST hell

[simply by doing good for others,as opposed to lying to them[with their half-baked unreasoned,created/delusions that they gather from other A-thiests feeding each-other lies based on unrealistic fears,and materialistic perspective]but to davids final say;

>>You must(?)remember this.<< ...>>Do your own impartial investigation about this.<

Early in the thread, Porky mentioned "religious nutters who want it all their way..and want to impose laws on others"

Before he apparently left the discussion in embarrassment, he advocated recriminalising homosexual acts. Apparently he's not the only Christian nutjob wanting to impose their own version of 'sharia' law on us. The odious Fred Nile's currently in the news, wanting to ban topless sunbathing and swimming.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/30/2456656.htm

Fortunately, commonsense seems to have prevailed again. But these Christian fundies increasingly want us to change our laws to accommodate their prudish religious sensibilities.

Sound familiar? As far as I'm aware, there are no fundamentalist Muslims as yet in Australian parliaments - but there's heaps of Christian fundies in them lobbying away all the time.

Dear OUG,

It is not up to me to prove everything to you right here and now. You know this is impossible and I suspect that this is why you ask. There’s plenty of information out there about transitional fossils. If you are genuinely interested, then you should go and investigate them instead of pretending they don’t exist, and expecting others to show you in a 350 word post.

But I must thank you for demonstrating what I was telling GZ about your posts containing many misconceptions:

“Surprisingly,in contradiction to the established law of biogenesis,spontaneous generation is still considered to be a valid tenet of current evolution theory.It is commonly known as abiogenesis(life origin without pre-existing life),which is a field of research in evolutionary biology.The recipes are much more sophisticated,but the results are the same: nothing.”

This entire paragraph is based on a false premise.

The Spontaneous Generation belief was that vermin and maggots spontaneously appeared in their current form. Abiogenesis does not claim that anything just “appeared” - especially not in its current form. Creationism is far more akin to the spontaneous generation.

Dear GZ,

You may not witness evolution happening right before your eyes, but many scientists do.

Do you deny natural selection? Do you deny that bugs become immune to pesticides? What about the mutations in bacteria that immunize them from antibiotics? How about the mutation that allows a very small percentage of women to see some of the ultraviolet spectrum? Or the bugs that have learned to digest nylon? Do you deny ring species and speciation? Not to mention the millions of other examples seen around the world in the distribution of all the species on the planet.

If you can accept the evidence for evolution, concede that the Earth is billions of years old, but then reject the theory of evolution on religious grounds - saying that they are only “explanations” and “claims” - then please don’t be surprised the next time you hear someone say that religious belief is irrational.

Why would a god want to deceive by creating all life precisely as though it had evolved from simple beginnings? Why would a god want to hide themselves, then punish non-believers for an eternity, simply because they used the reasoning abilities that he/she/it blessed them with?

You were correct when you said that a theory is not a theorem. In fact, the two are so different from each other, that they cannot even be compared in the way that you are comparing them. You're implying that a theory, once proven, becomes a theorem. This is not the case. A theorem is deductive, and a theory is empirical.

In short, a theorem is not an “upgraded” or more proven theory. Nor can one say that a theorem is better than a theory since they are two totally separate things.

Apples and oranges.

GZ,

At the moment I have a little green monster, obviously not of this earth, siting on my lap. It can appear and disappear at whim. There it is now, no, it’s gone again and now it’s back. Do you take my word on this? The answer is of course not!

However, you could put together a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, and a variety of other experts including filmmakers, eminent judges, and persons of standing in the community etc to investigate if the little green monster is real. One criterion would be you would have to make sure they are impartial witnesses and are not of a little green monster cult or have a personal or any beneficial kind of relationship with me. You would have to place special emphasis on looking for fakery and the tests would have to be of the highest order to disallow this. Your team of experts would have to include scientist of various disciplines to look at the evidence, evaluate it and then write their conclusion in an accredited scientific journal.

Do you see what I am saying here, GZ? Because people can say anything they want, it does not necessarily make it true, but it is very difficult to dismiss spooky claims.

Actually, this whole affair is the wrong way around on purpose. If I say I have a little green monster sitting on my lap, then I have to prove it. It is not up to you or others to disprove it. And it certainly is not up to anyone to take my word for it.

It would be an interesting exercise to have a group of Atheists experiment with an Ouija board because my guess is the cup would not move at all. Only a guess mind you. Might try it one day, just for fun, if ever I get the time. Just a thought, if you obtained an Ouija board, I could arrange for some Atheists/sceptics to do the test and you could look on as a witness at a location of your choosing.

What do you reckon?

David