Scientific Proof Of God

[JimC]

What about dreams of fucking a peacock?

[superuniverse]

What do we need to be skeptical about? HINT: The one thing Randi is not.

[rainbow]

What do we need to be skeptical about? HINT: The one thing Randi is not.

If you don't believe in exploding cioccolato bunnies, then don't come here asking inane questions.

[superuniverse]

What do we need to be skeptical about? HINT: The one thing Randi is not.

If you don't believe in exploding cioccolato bunnies, then don't come here asking inane questions.

I feel you are trying to say something but are not exactly sure what it is...

That's the trouble with this thread - ITS PROPHETIC NATURE.

[rainbow]

What do we need to be skeptical about? HINT: The one thing Randi is not.

If you don't believe in exploding cioccolato bunnies, then don't come here asking inane questions.

I feel you are trying to say something but are not exactly sure what it is...

That's the trouble with this thread - ITS PROPHETIC NATURE.

Tell you what. I'll tell you, if you answer my questions.


Are you brave enough?

[JimC]

That's the trouble with this thread - ITS PROPHETIC NATURE.

Given that "prophecy" of any kind is utter bullshit, I fully agree...

[superuniverse]

What do we need to be skeptical about? HINT: The one thing Randi is not.

If you don't believe in exploding cioccolato bunnies, then don't come here asking inane questions.

I feel you are trying to say something but are not exactly sure what it is...

That's the trouble with this thread - ITS PROPHETIC NATURE.

Tell you what. I'll tell you, if you answer my questions.


Are you brave enough?

But it is not you who is talking here...

[Svartalf]

That's the trouble with this thread - ITS PROPHETIC NATURE.

Given that "prophecy" of any kind is utter bullshit, I fully agree...

nothing of prophetic nature has any place in this thread, we're supposed to get a scientific proof, not the ravings of a demented conspirationist high on toxic vegetation.

[superuniverse]

We need further discussion on these so-called "CRITICAL THINKERS," since they are totally oblivious to the real critical issues facing the human species:






The trouble with these so-called critical thinkers is that thought has never been so slavishly bound to the given facts of life: it induces thought to be satisfied with the physical facts, to renounce any transgression beyond them, and to bow to the given state of social and political affairs. Saunders deals with completely irrelevant topics raised to the level of philosophical doctrines supposedly worthy of some sort of intellectual debate. We are not as stupid as he thinks we all are. His thought is completely void of social and political content. The end product of this type of thinking is conformism and scientism, which ends in robbing man of the one faculty that could allow him to transcend his exploitative society, namely, his REASON.

IN THEIR LITTLE MINDS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT *IS* AND WHAT *COULD BE*.


http://archive.randi.org/site/index.php ... ation.html


(Skepticism: The Next Generation)


Karen - you are the exact opposite of a critical thinker. your attitude is that of worshiping those in power, whomever that may be...

[JimC]

It puzzles me that you think that being non-religious, and basing one's thought on rational, scientific and evidence-based principles somehow correlates with being politically conformist and unwilling to contemplate radical social ideas. In fact, it is quite clear that a majority of conservative, right-wing pundits are also religious (or at least pay cynical lip-service to religion to gull their followers).

Your rants here seem to have two main themes. One involves a contemptuous hatred for atheists and skeptics of all things supernatural, the other involves a distrust of the modern capitalist system. On this forum, at least, you would find some agreement with strands of your second theme...

[Brian Peacock]

... The trouble with these so-called critical thinkers is that thought has never been so slavishly bound to the given facts of life: it induces thought to be satisfied with the physical facts, to renounce any transgression beyond them, and to bow to the given state of social and political affairs...

Meh. Marx's attempt at describing the complex of relationships that form--and through that form express--our social and political economies was fundamentally empirical and material. He understood that trying to describe human and social relations in terms of character and values was basically a waste of time: human experience is incorrigible, whereas the systems and structures by which social and political economies operated were observable; measurable; quantifiable. Marcuse was painfully aware of this too. You could do with re-examining your sources my friend. The cornerstone of human society is not thought or values or ideology or belief, but the resources we, as an evolved species who are subject to the same environmental pressures as any other species, require to exist. Marx was inspired by Darwin in this regard: we a product of our environment, and the spaces in which we dwell are ecologies.

[pErvinalia]

Evolved species? Are you saying we came from monkeys??

[rainbow]

What do we need to be skeptical about? HINT: The one thing Randi is not.

If you don't believe in exploding cioccolato bunnies, then don't come here asking inane questions.

I feel you are trying to say something but are not exactly sure what it is...

That's the trouble with this thread - ITS PROPHETIC NATURE.

Tell you what. I'll tell you, if you answer my questions.


Are you brave enough?

But it is not you who is talking here...

Yes it is.

Thank you for admitting that you're not brave enough to have an open debate.

[rainbow]

Evolved species? Are you saying we came from monkeys??

Sort of:
https://www.wantitall.co.za/toys/schyll ... b001cbzxee

[Svartalf]

Evolved species? Are you saying we came from monkeys??

Most politicians demonstrate that we are actually still very close to apes.