#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD
yes, I believe in god
Side Score: 280
|
 |
no,I don't beleive in god
Side Score: 313
|
|
8
points
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Side: yes, I believe in god
7
points
Poor argument that can't even stand as evidence, much less proof. It only works if you believe in God in the first place. You haven't established that the World (by the way, the "word" world usually means planet, and our planet makes up WAAAAY less than 1% of the known universe, so you are pretty much short-changing God's proposed creation) is by necessity a product of intelligence or supernatural activity. Can you do that without falling into tautology? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
The list of intelligent things isn't too big. There's human, possibly dolphins, whales, arguably some apes. Maybe some computer programs. Only that last category would count as something created by intelligence that we know. I don't see your point. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Apparently you're going off of a different definition than I am. I was thinking along the lines of creative and abstract thinking. I assumed that was what you were going for since you were trying to draw a connection here to such a creative force. I mean intelligent, as in something that is aware. Any living creature, really. No, just vertebrates. Anyway, my answer to your question is the first one. And that happened way the hell after the birth of the universe. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Anyway, my answer to your question is the first one. And that happened way the hell after the birth of the universe. Why does that matter? Whatever caused the Big Bang introduced the necessary ingredients, so to speak, for life to exist. If I plant a seed, I don't say that it took too long for it to become a tree, therefore the tree must not have been implied within the seed. In a single seed, you have the implication of the tree trunk, branches, leaves and more seeds (fruit, acorns, berries, flowers, etc. It depends on the tree). One tiny seed can imply so many different things. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
3
points
They earth supports life right now. Life which is testable and apparent. God is neither of these things. We can tell you how life works, how it is chemistry made up entirely of substances found in other, non-living, aspects of our planet. We cannot even prove God's existence, much less how he functions and does things like creating life. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
I could easily say "what if science is disproving the existence of "God" and we don't even realize it?" That isn't the point, the point is, IS science proving god? Is there evidence from science that leads to the conclusion of god? evidence doesn't inherrently support or oppose anything until we use logic to conclude what evidence supports what. That statement doesn't make a point at all, it just points out HOW the opposing side CAN make a point. Side: yes, I believe in god
I could easily say "what if science is disproving the existence of "God" and we don't even realize it?" How? What would science have to go off of? We have not knowingly observed a god before. They would have to know all of God's supposed features in order to disprove his (or its) existence. It seems to me that as far as the universe goes, science just points out the ingredients. That isn't the point, the point is, IS science proving god? Is there evidence from science that leads to the conclusion of god? Science probably will never be able to prove or disprove God. If anything, they may eventually come to a point that they can not explain, and that may pose the question: God? evidence doesn't inherrently support or oppose anything until we use logic to conclude what evidence supports what. UFO sightings are evidence of aliens, even though they may just be witnessing military technology. Bigfoot sightings are evidence for Bigfoot, even though it may just be a guy in a suit, or a bear. Near-Death-Experiences are evidence for God and the afterlife, even though they may just be having some strange after-death dream. All of this may not be scientific, but it is still evidence for those particular things. That statement doesn't make a point at all, it just points out HOW the opposing side CAN make a point. Lol okay, so then it is a point? Cool! It was simply food for thought. People often look at scientific findings as disproving God, but I was just pointing out that what if we were to look at it in another light, as proving God? The guy who came up with the Big Bang theory was ecstatic when he discovered it, because he considered it to be evidence FOR God... But many people disagree and interpret his theory differently. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
How? What would science have to go off of? We have not knowingly observed a god before. They would have to know all of God's supposed features in order to disprove his (or its) existence. It seems to me that as far as the universe goes, science just points out the ingredients. Exactly my point, we don't know if science is proving or disproving god, where we are unaware. otherwise we would be aware of it. I want REASONS to believe in god, and that most likely as far as I can tell be evidence for god. Not just the possibility, I consider god a possibility, just not a probability. Science probably will never be able to prove or disprove God. If anything, they may eventually come to a point that they can not explain, and that may pose the question: God? That would be an argument from ignorance, which if people already acknowledge as faulty, we are likely not to do so as we progress. UFO sightings are evidence of aliens, even though they may just be witnessing military technology. No it isn't. It is evidence of an unidentified flying object. We can't logically conclude that unidentified flying objects are necessarily extra-terrestrials. Bigfoot sightings are evidence for Bigfoot, even though it may just be a guy in a suit, or a bear. Or the evidence might be faulty. Near-Death-Experiences are evidence for God and the afterlife, even though they may just be having some strange after-death dream. I wouldn't call it an "after-death" dream, the brain doesn't die for a few seconds, and within those seconds, as we start to fade from the world, we probably go into a sleep mode that creates a dream that manifests the strange sensations we feel when we die. All of this may not be scientific, but it is still evidence for those particular things. Unless logic says otherwise. Lol okay, so then it is a point? Cool! It is a point to one person via their logic, but not to another person, but whose logic is better, is the real point. It was simply food for thought. People often look at scientific findings as disproving God, but I was just pointing out that what if we were to look at it in another light, as proving God? Science doesn't disprove god, it just doesn't support it in my opinion. The guy who came up with the Big Bang theory was ecstatic when he discovered it, because he considered it to be evidence FOR God... But many people disagree and interpret his theory differently. I don't know of anyone that actually makes the argument that the big bang disproves god, that is the image that we have, but I have never heard someone say "god doesn't exist because of the big bang" though I do hear a lot of extreme christians saying "the big bang never happened, god did it." Side: yes, I believe in god
I want REASONS to believe in god, and that most likely as far as I can tell be evidence for god. Not just the possibility, I consider god a possibility, just not a probability. You need to find your own reasons. Block out the nonsense being fed to you by over-the-top atheists and organized religion. They're both ridiculous. You have to come to your own conclusion. In the end, you may still doubt "God's" existence, but at least you came to that decision without being fed the thoughts of someone who thinks they know more than they really do. No it isn't. It is evidence of an unidentified flying object. We can't logically conclude that unidentified flying objects are necessarily extra-terrestrials. Dude, did you even read the rest of that sentence? I wouldn't call it an "after-death" dream, the brain doesn't die for a few seconds, and within those seconds, as we start to fade from the world, we probably go into a sleep mode that creates a dream that manifests the strange sensations we feel when we die. So within those few seconds someone can have an hour long dream? Have you died before? Unless logic says otherwise. Yeah, if you think you are some sort of genius who holds the answers to all of the world's mysteries. It is evidence. It may not ultimately lead to aliens, Bigfoot, or God... But it is still evidence. It is a point to one person via their logic, but not to another person, but whose logic is better, is the real point. Neither. It was a question. We don't know the answer, we just have a bunch of people who think they do. They live their lives with their head in a box, rejecting any idea that conflicts with their current beliefs. The sad part is that other people listen to them. Science doesn't disprove god, it just doesn't support it in my opinion. You must know what to look for then. I don't know of anyone that actually makes the argument that the big bang disproves god You've been away from CD for too long then lol. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
You need to find your own reasons. Block out the nonsense being fed to you by over-the-top atheists and organized religion. They're both ridiculous. You have to come to your own conclusion. In the end, you may still doubt "God's" existence, but at least you came to that decision without being fed the thoughts of someone who thinks they know more than they really do. The thing is, is I already do, if someone wants to convince me their is a god, well god is a very vague term that has been redefined a million times over, but something I would call god, would be some sort of supreme being, or being responsible for everything else but him/her/itself. They would have to give me a compelling reason to. So within those few seconds someone can have an hour long dream? Have you died before? I don't know if it would be EXACTLY like a dream, but something of the like. It could even be a hallucination, however I am not fully convinced it is necessarily experience of an afterlife. For all we know, as the brain shuts down, the person's perception of time is being tampered with. Wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen within the mind, and our perceptions of time change all the time. Hell if I go into a building with no windows and then come back out as the sun is setting or has set, I surprise myself sometimes. Yeah, if you think you are some sort of genius who holds the answers to all of the world's mysteries. No I don't, but I'd rather rely on what I can conclude, then think something while not understanding why. If my capacity for logic doesn't lead me to believe that said evidence points to said possibility, then under what means do I have to think the possibility is more than that? If someone produces a logic, that ultimately makes sense to me, then I will be compelled to agree. It is evidence. It may not ultimately lead to aliens, Bigfoot, or God... But it is still evidence. it is evidence for "something", this thing may not be a big deal, or it may be and be what people think it is, or it may be and be what people don't think it is. Everything is evidence for something, if that is what your point is, then I agree. Neither. It was a question. We don't know the answer, we just have a bunch of people who think they do. They live their lives with their head in a box, rejecting any idea that conflicts with their current beliefs. The sad part is that other people listen to them. My point was, was your statement was ultimately pointless, I did say it pointed out HOW those of belief can argue for their perspective, but it didn't directly have that point, so in that sense it was pointless. You must know what to look for then. Could you elaborate? You've been away from CD for too long then lol. I could see people bringing in the big bang to make god unnecessary, if someone else was trying to assert that god was necessary to explain something, but I can't see someone going "because the big bang happened, god couldn't have existed.: Side: yes, I believe in god
The thing is, is I already do, if someone wants to convince me their is a god, well god is a very vague term that has been redefined a million times over, but something I would call god, would be some sort of supreme being, or being responsible for everything else but him/her/itself. They would have to give me a compelling reason to. If we exist for eternity, would you really be upset that your experience on earth wasn't perfect? My point was, was your statement was ultimately pointless Is that really necessary? If my point didn't do anything for you, then ignore it. I don't need to continually read how you thought it was pointless. I thought it had a message, you didn't catch it, move on. Could you elaborate? You apparently know what kind of attributes "God" has, or should have. I tried to keep that response short, since we have like three arguments going at the same time. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Is that really necessary? If my point didn't do anything for you, then ignore it. I don't need to continually read how you thought it was pointless. I thought it had a message, you didn't catch it, move on. You know... fair enough. If we exist for eternity, would you really be upset that your experience on earth wasn't perfect? Though I must ask, what made you think that I am at all upset with my life? Side: yes, I believe in god
2
points
I don't necessarily believe in God as in the Judo Christian God but I do believe there is more to what we see on this earth and in this life what form that takes I don't know, whether it's the Great Spirit, God or the multitude of old God's or even something we're unaware of. It's one of those mysteries we won't discover until the end of our journey in through this life Side: yes, I believe in god
4
points
1
point
Gut feelings too. I've been going through some tough times lately, and sometimes I feel like turning my back on God. However, there's some great preaching at my church, and the Youth worker there helped me get back on track. Through all of this, I've been sure that someone's up there, someone bigger than science, who's going to be there at the end. Side: yes, I believe in god
Like Gratedebator said my beliefs are in part due to life experiences that can't be explained but I am also open minded when it comes to things like religion and belief, I've always been interested in different cultures and their beliefs but I have yet to find a "traditional" religion that suits me (for want of a better phrase), they all have their good points and their bad points and obviously as I said in my original post we won't know which one is right until we reach the end of our journey. Some people would think reading that paragraph that, that would make me an Agnostic of some kind but I do believe there is a higher power, I'm just undecided what this higher power may be. I guess I'm just a student of life and I am a member of the Church Of The Latter Day Dude and an ordained Dudeist priest which is a pretty easy going religion and is far from traditional!! Side: yes, I believe in god
Far from it following the crowd would just be blindly following the same religion I was brought up with and taught in school without questioning, instead I have questioned and researched different religions keeping an open mind trying to find my own way, how is that following the crowd? Side: yes, I believe in god
You are just a "picky sheep", you do not follow a specific delusion, you just make one up from multiple others... I really don't see how is better mixture of mythologies from one mythology. ...like "No no no, I'm not eating only horse shit, I also eat some cat and dog shit, therefore I do not eat shits..." Side: no,I don't beleive in god
2
points
I wasn't meant to be a prick. By higher power I assume you mean god/s not a gravity like force, something conscious am I right? You are British, so most probably a Christian/Anglican? Because logically belief in god/s without being a member of some religious group/cult is impossible. It makes word "god" as valid as "Gandalf" without the Lord of the rings book. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
I'm not sure what your saying as your sentence doesn't make sense, are you saying I believe in a higher power (a God or whatever) but not the theology that goes with it? If so you are wrong nowhere have I said that I don't believe in the different theologies that organised religion offer, what I've said is it's just that I have yet to find one that suits me, that does not mean that I do not believe in the possibility that they could be true. I am not presumptuous enough to assume that the unknowable is right or wrong I have my view based on my knowledge and experiences and that's all it is neither right nor wrong, you can take it or leave it, it makes no difference to me. You may not believe in a God and someone like Srom for instance believes in the Christian God I'm not going to tell either of you that your right or wrong because that's your belief it's not provable and it's unknowable and to tell someone their belief's are not valid because they don't fit in a certain box is just not cool. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
2
points
I've had experiences in the past which just cannot be explained just weird shit happening which cannot be put down to any material cause, it's no proof of a God also it's no hard proof of any thing Supernatural but to me it point's in the direction of the possibility of there being something else other than us, also I like to think that there some kind of afterlife or something more than just this life, reincarnation, Heaven, Valhalla, I dont know what and like I keep saying I have no proof, no evidence it's just a belief of mine. None of us have any proof that there is or isn't anything after we die or there is or isn't a God so saying for definite that there is or isn't or that one religion is right or wrong is erroneous as we wont know for sure until we die any way and then it's too late to say I told you so anyway!! Side: yes, I believe in god
4
points
3
points
1
point
What do you mean by creating force? Not gonna bother answering that because I'm astonished someone claiming to know so much about a topic has no clue what the hell I'm talking about. Don't play stupid, it makes debates way shitty. And in case you are being serious, a creating force as in a conscious direction for things to evolve. And I never said it wasn't possible, all I am saying is something, not physically, but some type of force or something that's unexplainable is telling the flowers to bloom a certain way, it directs them, guides them, just like everything on the planet, its all life force. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
I'm astonished someone claiming to know so much about a topic has no clue what the hell I'm talking about. "Creating force" is a vague term. I wanted you to clarify so I could know what characteristics you believe this force has. And in case you are being serious, a creating force as in a conscious direction for things to evolve. Why must it be conscious? all I am saying is something, not physically, but some type of force or something that's unexplainable is telling the flowers to bloom a certain way, it directs them, Its not unexplainable at all. Its chemistry and physics. guides them, just like everything on the planet, its all life force. Most things on this planet are not living and never have been. Unlikely that lifeorce would be everywhere Side: no,I don't beleive in god
5
points
4
points
3
points
4
points
2
points
3
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Pretty much every single near death experiences, dead men being returned back to life and many other paranormal activities involving the dead and ESP. This stuff cannot be understood by ordinary minds of men. If aliens can do this, then can already belong to the category of superior beings. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
You cannot resuscitate someone cold dead for more than 15 mins. A man who fell from brain illness must not be able to dream nor remember anything in coma. You cannot create a painting that defied the laws of physics. You cannot contact the voices of the dead ...unless you acknowledge the existence of the divine. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
Yes they are. Its not a fabricated story when there are scientific proofs that baffles even the wisest scientists. For example and another Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
There is literally no evidence for any of those claims of what is claimed to happen to that picture. Shroud of Turin was dated by three prestigious Universities to be from around 1300, also it was recreated by techniques known by people in medieval... All this magical things are made up from half truth and entire bullshit Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Here is is the complete scientific findings by NASA itself: http://www.conchiglia.us/UK/UKClettere/07.67UKNASASCOPERTESULLATILMA13.05.07.pdf The ways the painting was made was far too complicated for mortal men. A replica was made to try and test the painting but it decayed in less than 10 years while the original still stood strong even after 100 years A scan led by Dr. Javier Torroella on the painting shows that the paintings hides another microscopic picture in the eyes of mother Mary. That is a feat impossible to do even with modern technology Many scientists have tried to explain it. All of them reached one conclusion- it is beyond explanation Side: yes, I believe in god
Common religious hoax NASA was not involved at all but on the other side research was funded by several "religious" organisation and mainly done in Vatican. That is like letting Nazi and SS officers to investigate the Holocaust. Dr. Javier Torroella is an eye doctor... hmmm "Jude B. Smith, scientists of NASA"... Why I cannot find a single line about him/her anywhere apart of this "document\", not even a paper that suppose to be done by him/her? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
There is literally not a single line anywhere on NASA portal not even Google knows about any connection. There is also no scientist related to NASA what so ever called Jude B Smith ... Dr. Javier is an eye doctor, would you let him to do heart surgery on you? I assume not... It is all fabricated by religious fanatics. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Journal of the American Academy of Religion. University of Chicago Press. Numismatics International Bulletin Just the first things I saw. Do you have any excuse that would say that this sources are not credible? Side: yes, I believe in god
2
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
"In what is the first report on the eyes of the image issued by a physician, he certifies what seems to be the presence of the triple reflection (Samson-Purkinje effect) characteristic of all live human eyes and states that the resulting images are located exactly where they are supossed to be according to such effect, and also that the distortion of the images agree with the curvature of the cornea." Dr Javier was hired to confirm what seems like an effect that should have been existent only on the eyeballs of an animal. Is there a problem? Side: yes, I believe in god
Again, no paper done on it, second Purkyne effect, happens when you leave a bit of oil on a surface, it is probably everywhere on the picture which is what don't tell you. It can be used for example for glossy effect and so on... As I said before Dr Javier is an eye doctor and not a artist/painter, for him it must weird. Similar technique is being used on paintings that looks like the people stare on you even if you move around them. You can do it on your own with a filtered olive oil and some random painting. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
If you are not content with Dr. Javier's research, then perhaps the other scientists will interest you. José Aste Tonsmann - A professor and scientist of environmental engineering. Used satellite technology to study the painting and concluded that the painting "has not been painted by human hand." Richard Kuhn - Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. said he found that the image did not have natural, animal or mineral colorings and since there were no synthetic colorings in 1531, the image is "inexplicable". Philip Callahan and Jody B. Smith - biophysicists studied the Tilma with Infrared rays. discovered to their surprise that there was no trace of paint and that the fabric had not been treated with any kind of technique. "How it is possible to explain this image and its consistency ... on a fabric that has not been treated?" Tonsmann asked. "[How] is it possible that, despite the fact there is no paint, the colors maintain their luminosity and brilliance?" Tonsmann, a Peruvian engineer, added, "Callahan and Smith showed how the image changes in color slightly according to the angle of viewing, a phenomenon that is known by the word iridescence, a technique that cannot be reproduced with human hands." Science has supported the existence of the paranormal. You have no excuse anymore. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Oh you moron :D :D :D :D :D Guadalupe is a nickname for geological survey on MARS :D http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/ Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
as far You have presented to me as a reference for the magical picture. -50 years dead guy who said something without leaving any evidence for doing so -guy who is financially depended on that picture -fake/made up NASA scientist -bug scientist, who wrote books on magic and detects Tachyons by connecting ordinary electro meter to a ficus Eyedoctor ...? who after examining this http://www.saintanthonyofpadua.net/ says it's a miracle :D I saw more credible evidence for big foot. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
-Its practically just one search away to know everything that Richard has studied. The Guadalupe is one of them -Evidence, got one? -You got to back that one with proof -His name is Dr. Callahan. He has done a major contribution in the field of science and proving the existence of Tachyons is one of them. -Yes, and I can see that you avoided the containing Marian document. I see that you no longer replied to the other arguments. Guess you know what that means, right? :) Side: yes, I believe in god
Dr. Callahan is a charlatan, CERN has no equipment to detect Tachyons, you need to destroy a star omg... he used vegetables... He is a joke, a freak that worked with ants. He has nothing. Marian document? Another BS without data done by ...let me gues a priest ? Bishop? or any other freak? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
"Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist." It was discovered by man who has a passion for biology and nothing more. Be more creative. I know that you can be more hilarious Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Tell that to the people who thanked Dr. Callahan for his studies and still wonders why he never got a Nobel Prize. said by: "Global Ant Project" < do they feel like someone who is in theoretical physics ? the other scientist? Guy who is on payroll of that picture institution? or the guy who is dead for 50 years and left no evidence about working on it? Or the fake NASA scientist ? Or the eye doctor? :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Yes and can you prove him wrong this time? Seriously? you are still saying that Dr. Jose is being bribed even though you have no evidence? I cant breath hahahahaha! As for Richard, how long exactly would you deny his studies? This is so much fun. Go ahead please, make me laugh harder Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
His name is Dr. Callahan ...and he works his whole life with ants... he has two books about magical rocks and detects hypothetical particles with vegetables... ... I haven't finished my Ph.D yet, but I can say with clear conscience. I am more credible. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
You have failed to present any evidence of the picture being magical. You have tried to trick me with: Bug guy, who detect particle faster than light by using vegetables Fake NASA scientist Guy who is on payroll of the picture's owner Eye Doctor's opinion *50 years old dead guy who "suppose to said" something without leaving evidence. sorry sweetie, try harder. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Repeating it over? pity, I expected some more hilarity Dr. Callahan is a well renowned scientist who revealed enough evidences that supports his ridiculous claims Theres an abundance of empirical evidences that NASA tried to test it You are claiming something without proof He is an optician who confirmed the miraculous eye of the Guadalupe His works are readily available through google You are no different from the rest of the ignorant neckbeards who come over here thinking that being an edgy Atheist is a cool thing. But when faced with real facts, you all crumble in denial. Go back to whatever site you came from. (Let me guess, YouTube comments?) Side: yes, I believe in god
Dr. Callahan is a well renowned scientist who revealed enough evidences that supports his ridiculous claims Please link me the data sheet. Theres an abundance of empirical evidences that NASA tried to test it link me to NASA paper (not cathilc paper including word NASA rela NASA paper) He is an optician who confirmed the miraculous eye of the Guadalupe an eye doctor, examined painting.... yeah why not :D What about supporting it with some random Dentists findings? :D You are no different from the rest of the ignorant neckbeards who come over here thinking that being an edgy Atheist is a cool thing. But when faced with real facts, you all crumble in denial You have not presented single independent paper, not even one. Only religious garbage and fakes. Hoping that I am not going to check if it fits, but I did... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Yeah sure. Now can you prove him wrong? I can see that you are still stuck in denial. I had my fun but you have overstayed your welcome. Just go back to the YouTube comments or Facebook stuff. Your ignorant rumblings has no place over here P.S Faking a Ph.D is a criminal offense Side: yes, I believe in god
You have failed once again. Googlng NASA paper on Guadalupe shown no single result leading to NASA webpage apart of the one about mars. but you know that, because I have sent that link to you two days ago. Second link leads to profile page of Callagan on web page about ants... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Precisely. Why would NASA write down the facts that will prove the existence of the paranormal? Second link is YOUR own link that proves how Dr. Callahan has proven all his ridiculous claims Qoute: "He is the author of 106 scientific papers and 12 books on science and a full professor on the graduate faculty of the University of Florida. He is one of 5% of U.S. Scientists in the Who’s Who of Technology today. He retired from the USDA on June 20, 1986, and is now on the staff of the Olive W. Garvey Center for the improvement of Human Functioning, Inc., Wichita, Kansas as an infrared systems and low energy consultant." Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist. (One of the world's great unsolved mysteries is why Dr. Callahan has never been honored with the Nobel Prize in physics for such an amazing and historic achievement.) Side: yes, I believe in god
"He is the author of 106 scientific papers and 12 books on science and a full professor on the graduate faculty of the University of Florida. He is one of 5% of U.S. Scientists in the Who’s Who of Technology today. He retired from the USDA on June 20, 1986, and is now on the staff of the Olive W. Garvey Center for the improvement of Human Functioning, Inc., Wichita, Kansas as an infrared systems and low energy consultant." Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist. (One of the world's great unsolved mysteries is why Dr. Callahan has never been honored with the Nobel Prize in physics for such an amazing and historic achievement.) from page about ants, no valid for physics sorry. sorry conspiracy theories done by religious fanatics about NASA hiding "the truth" are truly retarded. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
No, in science you have to prove that you are right. This is not religion. His paper on Tachyons has not been accepted by any peer reviewed journal. There is no way around it. His work on bugs is surely excellent but he sucks in Physics.You are obviously incapable of understanding that simple fact. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
And he did. How else can he publish a hundred papers and dozens of books and even earn a good title in the field of science if he never presented any evidence? His papers on Tachyons are not only widely appreciated but also brought him fame in the scientific community. Come on, recycling your exuces is a fascination for no one Let me guess, you will deny what made laugh a few minutes ago, right? Side: yes, I believe in god
He published mainly about bugs on bugs websites his paper on Tachyons is not recognized it is a bogus. ....Tachyons are not only widely appreciated but also brought him fame in the scientific community I would like a link to some recognized, physics journals talking about his awesome discoveries :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
0
points
0
points
Again science is from real world ,it is not a religion. He has to conclusively proof he is right.... It is done by sending his findingto all prestigious journals on physics who will then test it and if it passes it will be accepted and published. Then it will be read, criticized and retested by the community. This is why BS is not passing. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
2
points
0
points
1
point
As I said before, he is a charlatan publishing on magic, never published in non insect paper that matters... no matter how many times you link the book about magic and tachyons ...it will not became truth... He knows shit about physics and yet this discredited charlatan is only hope for your magical picture :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
Repeating the argument Denial of fault Changing the topic If you are gonna bait someone to forget how you humiliated yourself by claiming that Defemation is not a crime, faked your Ph.d, replied with unintelligent words, and refusal to admit your loss, then you truly are an embarrassment to mankind. No joke. The world will be less polluted once you hanged yourself Side: yes, I believe in god
Here we are again crying :D Unless I have forgotten, you have presented only fake scientist, magic bug hoaxer, dead guy and a guy who works for the picture's owners... I have only asked for one reputable source. What I've got? A freakshow or religious weirdos and a freak... Why is it with "miracles" allays like that? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
It is interesting that a weird pseudo-scientist published his discovery in particle physics in a religious papers that do not have a peer board in physics, mathematics, engineering or astronomy. Who by they own description deals exclusively with religion traditions, rituals and sociology... Have you ever seen for example that latest discovery in field molecular biology being published in Arts Journal? Or Economical model in Chemistry journal? ... I did not. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
"He is one of 5% of U.S. Scientists in the Who's Who of Technology today. He retired from the USDA on June 20, 1986, and is now on the staff of the Olive W. Garvey Center for the improvement of Human Functioning, Inc., Wichita, Kansas as an infrared systems and low energy consultant." Ironic isnt it? Those who has a degree in physics were astounded by the fact that a mere bug scientist can overwhelm their discoveries. He is doing a better job in replacing them. Side: yes, I believe in god
Ironic isnt it? Those who has a degree in physics were astounded by the fact that a mere bug scientist can overwhelm their discoveries. He is doing a better job in replacing them. Who with degree in physics was astounded by which discovery? ...are we talking about magical rocks, ants or tachyons in vegetables? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
...maybe a weird bug guy who wrote books on magic, esoteric, healing rocks and does physical experiments on ficus leafs ...is not much a scientist. More like a shaman or wizard and that is the area of expertise of those two Religion Journals, am I right :D I have printed his "paper" on Tachyons :D a brought it to my favourite bar to "weekly" meeting of my group, we really had a good laugh. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
No. He placed every scientists in shame after using merely garbage to discover things that those with a degree cannot. He published his works and got respected as one of the brilliant minds in the the scientific community. Then he tested the Guadalupe and confirmed that it is beyond scientific explanation Side: yes, I believe in god
Nice delusion you live in. He is an idiot, fuctard with ficus. He discredited himself, by trying to publish an obvious bullshit. He wrote book on magic, how scientific is that? :D It is interesting that "magic picture" has been tested by just an only "scientist" from unrelated scientific disciplines with really funny background and I'm not even talking about those who does not even exist :D so where is his paper published apart of religious journals ? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
BA is in common on old UK colleges to be given for any kind of degree. I have BA in Mathematics. In Darwin times were scientific disciplines much less separated. Originally he was on best UK medical school where he joined natural history group. later he was forced by his father to became a Pastor. After that he tried to get into the Tripos but as Pastor he did not qualified so he went for degree in Natural Theology. SO he had all the possible education in biology that was available... All you arguments are from ignorance, very easy to break. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
But in the end he never had any official degree in biology. All that Charles Darwin had was an experience in gardening and traveling. In fact, Charles considers himself more of a theologist than a scientist. Similarly, Dr. Callahan used his knowledge in insects and experience in biology to enhance his knowledge in the art of infrared technology and microwaves to become one of the first scientists to discover Tachyon's. Using merely house hold tools, he became responsible for 106 scientific papers and 12 books all has greatly contributed in the scientific world. He is considered as one of the most under appreciated thinkers in the world. And despite his wisdom, he failed to explain the Guadalupe. Side: yes, I believe in god
please link some of his surely plenty articles in one of these http://www.scimagojr.com/ Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
You must be really desperate, using link to a webpage about ants as a proof that bug scientist found Tachyon by measuring vegetables :D :D :D btw here is your NASA Guadalupe, it is a rock on MARS http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/ Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
You have failed to present a single reference to NASA webpage with article about your picture. You have repeatedly send just simple Google result with no link to NASA page. You are religious zealot incapable of independent thinking. Reading same psedo-science, articles done by religious weirdo like you but now you hit someone who knows how to verified credibility of articles. Game Over. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
And here is where you completely proved your ignorance. Just for the sake of memories, I took a screencap LOL Do the world a favor and kill yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
JAAR and JSSR are peer-reviewed academic papers who devoted themselves to the study of every single religion in the world. They are ranked as one of the most respected papers ever published. It is exactly what you are looking for. And guess what? Science has indeed abandoned you. Come on faggot, it will only take 6 pills of Aleve to get rid of yourself from the genepool Side: yes, I believe in god
Why does Physicist publish in Papers that are about religions? :D How are they qualified in particle Physics? Please show me where those two JSSR and JAAR got in their description "we review particle physics". I only found that they do Religions and sociology... :D That's really a joke :D :D :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
Since the first time scientific journals began to be circulated among academies ...in their respective fields. I do maths and physics, I will not publish in South African history quarterly or in Neuron... simply because those people are not experts in my field to test my hypothesis... Scientific Journals are not newspapers. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
No it is not, same why you have no papers about poetry in journal about Pharma. Only way why would your paper be published in religious paper would be because it does fits the description. Especially when the paper is about Healing power of Tahyons :D :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
again, science is not realm of religion and magic. HE has to prove that HE is right. Nobody is obligated of disproving anything. HE has to prove that HE is 100% his experiment must be redone board of peers and multiple universities... He done none of it. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
He has done his job of 100% evidence that the Guadalupe is beyond explanation. He has done countless experiments and redone by peers and scientific agencies, even NASA themselves was involved. It has been 30 years since scientists first examined the Tilma and no one was able to prove their evidences wrong, which means only one thing: Denial can only get you so far Side: no,I don't beleive in god
...and bullshits are back. Bug scientist, closely related to magic, healing rocks, etc. As far as I remember you haven't provided anything relevant that would by any way linked NASA to that picture. What evidence are you talking about? Bug freak with ficus? Guy employed by company that owns the picture? Fake NASA scientist? Nobel prize winner that examined the "evidence" 20 years after his death? is this how you imagine solid science? I see just another religious hoax made up for profit... Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Indeed. >Dr Callahan is not a bug scientist but a biophysicist who proved his ridiculous claims >If NASA was never involved in the study, the Guadalupe books would be confiscated for the crimes of Defamation >He was employed AFTER he failed >Its just takes one search in Google to know everything >How you say that its made for profit when they ask for no charge in entering the church and seeing the painting? Just stop your denials, already. You know that you have already failed. Do you want me to start laughing again? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Dr Callahan is not a bug scientist but a biophysicist who proved his ridiculous claims By qualification he is entomologist (exact meaning: bug dissector) most of his papers are about ants. If NASA was never involved in the study, the Guadalupe books would be confiscated for the crimes of Defamation No it would not. It is very common for religious hoaxers to use word NASA hoping that people like you wouldn't dig around. Just try YouTube for NASA proves science in Quran, Bible etc... they wouldn't be doing anything else... Gaugalupe owners/hoaxers are in Mexico... >He was employed AFTER he failed claimed by guy paid for saying so... >How you say that its made for profit when they ask for no charge in entering the church and seeing the painting? Religious drones gives money to anything that is shiny or magical, tax free money... more bullshit they make, more magical it will look like, equals more donations... Have you ever wondered why they never ever gave a smallest sample to recognized labs like those in MIT, Oxford, Caltech, ESA ? Because it would end up like Shroud of Turin, labs would publish that it is a hoax... Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
By qualification he is entomologist He graduated as a biophysicist and has been renowned in his craft. Doesnt mean that your passion are insects doesnt mean that you are useless in other fields. It is very common for religious hoaxers to use word NASA If you are referring to ordinary hoaxes on the internet, then I agree. But it is a different matter if it was published for public use. All books are carefully analyzed by every state and every wrong information has its punishments. From being sued to removal of license, it all counts. If they are lying, the Guadalupe books would be confiscated claimed by guy paid for saying so... Ive been asking you for evidences that he was being bribed. You always skip this question. Gee, I wonder why. Religious drones gives money to anything that is shiny or magical You consider donations as profit? Seriously? Have you ever wondered why they never ever gave a smallest sample to recognized labs like those in MIT, Oxford, Caltech, ESA ? What are you talking about? The research has been analyzed and approved by Oxford and Harvard. Published in scientific and religious journals and carefully studied in many universities and scientific academies. sigh This is pathetic. You know that you already lost. Its time to stop posting and go back to YouTube Side: no,I don't beleive in god
All books are carefully analyzed by every state and every wrong information has its punishments. From being sued to removal of license, it all counts. Pure 100% bullshit. Ive been asking you for evidences that he was being bribed. You always skip this question. Gee, I wonder why. José Aste Tonsmann, a Cornell University graduate of environmental systems engineering, who is now with the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies.... independent as fuck :D What are you talking about? The research has been analyzed and approved by Oxford and Harvard I would like to see lab reports, like the one for Turin ...direct link please : He graduated as a biophysicist and has been renowned in his craft. Doesnt mean that your passion are insects doesnt mean that you are useless in other fields Philip S. Callahan full list of his life work http://dykstralabs.com/wp-content/ All about corn worms moths, ants... sorry :D Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Pure 100% bullshit. Your denials amuse me José Aste Tonsmann, a Cornell University graduate of environmental systems So, where is the proof that he was bribed? I would like to see lab reports, like the one for Turin ...direct link please All about corn worms moths, ants You skipped his works on Tachyons? How adorable. I might start humiliating you again later. Goodluck trying to remain active on this site. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
"Pure 100% bullshit. Your denials amuse me" Why so? Please link me the global censorship institution that rules over all books on the planet and decides what can be published and what cannot... :D So, where is the proof that he was bribed? He works for the picture owner a.k.a he is paid by the picture owner. Wikipedia is not a lab report nor it links to any. I did not skipped any... We are in circle. I am asking evidence. you are not offering any. over and over again. btw your link does not works HIS WORK ON "TAHYONS" is alchemy/magic. Which is exactly why it was never ever published in a single physics journal. Not even one. So "awesome" discovery done just with vegetables ... and the only people who talks about that are Religious journals and friends from Ant society. You are delusional religious zealot, refusing to live in reality. hiding behind bullshit and hoaxes. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Whats the matter? Too dumb to use the bold function on all arguments? Why so? Please link me the global censorship institution that rules over all books on the planet and decides what can be published and what cannot He works for the picture owner a.k.a he is paid by the picture owner. Salaries does not equates to bribery. And he became a worker after he failed Wikipedia is not a lab report nor it links to any. Im so impressed. Never expected another original excuse. HIS WORK ON "TAHYONS" is alchemy/magic. Which is exactly why it was never ever published in a single physics journal. Stop making a fool of yourself. If you want to make me laugh, dont try too hard.
Side: no,I don't beleive in god
THERE IS NOBODY WHO CHECKS BOOKS TO BE CORRECT !!! How wold you expect to be "God's Delusion" legally sold??? If is it right why could be any religious books legally sold?... meh? ""Salaries does not equates to bribery. And he became a worker after he failed"" Ever heard about paid promotion? Having salary for promoting product kind of disqualifies you from being "independent" opinion... especially in area you have no educational background or experience... ""Im so impressed. Never expected another original excuse."" As I said Wikipedia is free to edit database. If I want to add that Guadalupe was brought to Earth by Aliens. I can... Stop making a fool of yourself. If you want to make me laugh, dont try too hard. NO SINGLE PAPER IN PHYSICS JORNAL NO REPETITION OF EXPERIMENT DONE BY ANYBODY TO CONFIRM IT A.K.A it did not happen... It is exactly same as me saying that I can fly and it is true because I just wrote it to you. I'm not going to show it to you. You just must believe me. Sorry but this is how religions works not science. In Science prove it or just fuck off. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Who would have thought, you were still alive. And look, seems like you have made a good entrance. THERE IS NOBODY WHO CHECKS BOOKS TO BE CORRECT !!! Ever heard about paid promotion? So where is your evidence that he is paid to lie? As I said Wikipedia is free to edit database. LOL Yeah sure, and did you check the references yet? NO SINGLE PAPER IN PHYSICS JORNAL Your capitalization sure makes your argument better. hahaha! Side: no,I don't beleive in god
As I saud before, there is no one who decides if book is true or Bullshit. That would mean that you can have only religious books or atheist/science books not both. Because your imaginary institution would have to ban one of them... ...so how do you call your imaginary book checkers? Book fairies? "So where is your evidence that he is paid to lie?" He is paid to say what helps picture owners. Which even a person with half brain would realize that he would never said otherwise. It is logical. Which makes his opinion as valid as any promotion... LOL Yeah sure, and did you check the references yet? Yes I did, most of them are purely religious the rest is general stuff about general pictures. Not a single link to a scientific study (Real Science, not alchemy or religions)... http://news.google.com/ Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
As I saud before, there is no one who decides if book is true or Bullshit. Do not think of your ignorance as reality. Every single book published are carefully inspected by the government and critics alike before they can be distributed to the public. If the Guadalupe books are lying, then they will be sued for defamation. Come on little retard. Im sure that if you put more effort in your denials, it will take you somewhere. He is paid to say what helps picture owners. Apparently not as he only became a worker after he failed to explain. His scientific report are readily available online, many scientists browsed his studies only to conclude the same thing- it cannot be explained. Yes I did, most of them are purely religious the rest is general stuff about general pictures. The truth hurts isnt it? I wonder how painful it is to be abandoned by the most your trusted source of information. hahaha does not works Side: no,I don't beleive in god
""Do not think of your ignorance as reality. Every single book published are carefully inspected by the government and critics alike before they can be distributed to the public. If the Guadalupe books are lying, then they will be sued for defamation. Come on little retard. Im sure that if you put more effort in your denials, it will take you somewhere."" How is the institution called? Or should I bring my book to police to check it up for me first? :D Please send me link to your ultra, super, secret books review agency :D :D Apparently not as he only became a worker after he failed to explain. His scientific report are readily available online, many scientists browsed his studies only to conclude the same thing- it cannot be explained. Still same shit ... it is called marketing, you pay person to say what you want and they do so... same like telepest.... no difference. ""The truth hurts isnt it? I wonder how painful it is to be abandoned by the most your trusted source of information. hahaha"" ??? You have failed to provide reference that is not religious. DO you realize that you have failed Your link (http://www.oakwilt.com/ Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Please send me link to your ultra, super, secret books review agency If you failed their test of accuracy, you will be subjected to proper punishments. At worst cases, you will be send to face in the Department of Justice Still same shit ... it is called marketing, Nope. You are saying that he is being bribed to speak of lies when you cannot even present the slightest of evidence. You have failed to provide reference that is not religious Interesting. Tell me more of how Wikipedia, JSSR and JAAR are religious sources. The paper is called " EXPOSING PHIL CALLAHAN" So youre saying that you read only the title? How cute~ Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Department of Education does universal censorship ? :D :D :D :D f you failed their test of accuracy.... :D Deluded little bitch :D :D Nope. You are saying that he is being bribed to speak of lies when you cannot even present the slightest of evidence. Sorry it's like hearing from Tobacco company that smoking does nit kill :D Interesting. Tell me more of how Wikipedia, JSSR and JAAR are religious sources. The both have RELIGION in their name, none of them claims to have particle physics board :D ... So youre saying that you read only the title? How cute~ No, I read up to the part where author said "This book is quite entertaining and, at a cost of only $16.00, is certainly worth what amounts to the price of a couple of movie tickets." :D I was stuck in my dentist waiting room so I really read thy whole thing and it was quite funny.. You obviously did not read it at all, because by posting it to me you shot yourself in leg... :D Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Department of Education does universal censorship? No. The Board of Education ensures that every book published are accurate and does not promote any propaganda that can ignite misunderstandings. The Department of Justice decides your punishment Sorry it's like hearing from Tobacco company that smoking does nit kill No, he has given all the evidences needed and has converted many scientists to try and test his researches. Hence, you need facts that can disprove him The both have RELIGION in their name, none of them claims to have particle physics board With that logic, you are saying that Einsteins work are false because he is a Jew and evolution does not exist because Charles Darwin is a Theologist No, I read up to the part where author said "This book is quite entertaining and, at a cost of only $16.00 sigh You read only the title and the footnote, then made your own conclusion. If you are really this dumb, then that explains why you're an atheist. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
No. The Board of Education ensures that every book published are accurate and does not promote any propaganda that can ignite misunderstandings. The Department of Justice decides your punishment OmG pure bullshit, so why is it legal to publish Mein Kampf in US ? :D Ever heard about "Freedom of Speech"? Do you made this up or someone is making fun of you? No, he has given all the evidences needed and has converted many scientists to try and test his researches. Hence, you need facts that can disprove him Point is, he never gave out any lab report, he just used his "imaginary space technology" :D and then ran around screaming it's magical (for money). Especially his background is completely unsuitable. It is like giving painter MRI images of brain to analyse simply because both are pictures, aren't they? :D With that logic, you are saying that Einsteins work are false because he is a Jew and evolution does not exist because Charles Darwin is a Theologist Again bullshit, Einstein was not Jew and eve if so he was trained physicist and Darwin Biologist. Those religious papers do not do physics, none of them. They never did. They do not have boar related to it or people. You read only the title and the footnote, then made your own conclusion. If you are really this dumb, then that explains why you're an atheist They are really laughing at him. They also picked up best of Callaghans bullshit :D He cannot have worst reputation. He is completely deluded idiot. Have you even read it???? You did not. You simply sent me the only thing on whole internet that has no "religion" in it's name ...an it was page mocking that retard :D Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
so why is it legal to publish Mein Kampf in US Simple, because it is accurate and is not guilty of defamation of any sort. Anyone can have freedom of speech, until you violated the law and became accused of Libel, that is. he never gave out any lab report, he just used his "imaginary space technology Typing his name in Google brings you directly to his works. Including all the lab reports that he made when he challenged the Guadalupe. What were you saying again? Einstein was not Jew Thats right, make your own history. I guarantee that you will someday find someone with an intellect lower than yours Darwin Biologist No. He said it himself that if he never studied theology, the Origin of Species would have never been made. Is this all the denials that you can create? They are really laughing at him. By insulting something that you never read, you already made yourself a laughing stock. Congratulations. Now, please stop embarrassing yourself. edit I might not be here tomorrow. I expect that you can at least use the time to speak something intelligent Side: no,I don't beleive in god
You are troll or really the dumbest cunt I ever heard about. There is no institution that checks books, it does not exist. That's why creationist books were not banned or the deluded crap from Callaghan. Over 2 000 000 books are published every year and about 15 000 000 papers.... Please give me link ...not general link to some edu,gov or so.... I WANT link directly to the censor :D Typing his name in Google brings you directly to his works. Including all the lab reports that he made when he challenged the Guadalupe. What were you saying again? stop shitting around and send me lab report. Thats right, make your own history. I guarantee that you will someday find someone with an intellect lower than yours As usual you know nothing about science or scientists. He gave up on Judaism when he was 12. Later he gave up on all religions as every sane person. Try to read his biography and or his personal correspondence where can see how he is mocking religions. No. He said it himself that if he never studied theology, the Origin of Species would have never been made. Is this all the denials that you can create? You are really dumb, shooting yoursel into leg again. Few days ago you sent me link on wikipedia page about Darwin, as usually you did not read anything just posted random link, there is written that Darwin attended, best medical school in the UK, trained as priest later tried to do maths and after that he did biology, natural theology... By insulting something that you never read, you already made yourself a laughing stock. Congratulations. Now, please stop embarrassing yourself. edit I might not be here tomorrow. I expect that you can at least use the time to speak something intelligent Your own link was called "Exposing Callaghan" which also listed his biggest bullshits he ever done (I really laugh) ... You did not read that ...and just sent it to me, trying so desperately to impress me You have discredited the old retard by yourself. That I find hilarious :D You are so simple... Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
There is no institution that checks books, it does not exist. My sides! HAHAHA! I just came from work and damn, you really hit me off guard. This is pure solid gold hahaha! Now everyone is looking at me and I must share the word. I blame your for this. send me lab report. Too stupid to search on your own? How many times do you want to be spoonfed? Try to read his biography and or his personal correspondence where can see how he is mocking religions. "Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being" -Wikipedia In conclusion: He hates atheism and prefers to lean more on the side of being a believer. Which means that as a believer, you will say that his researches are wrong, correct? :D Few days ago you sent me link on wikipedia page about Darwin, And apparently, you did not even know the full story. Even after Darwin studied biology, published the Origin of Species, and earned the ire of the Catholic church, he remained true to his faith and choose to study theology. Your own link was called "Exposing Callaghan" So youre saying that up until now you havent read one bit of its contents? Oh man, I will never forget your stupidity. :D Here, I qouted the so called Exposing Dr. Callahan: "Using the "theory of materialization" and Einstein's formula, Dr. Callahan goes on to explain (page 119) that Sai Baba's feat is entirely possible. Einstein's formula (E=mc²) "demands light having speeds equal to or lower than the energy," he says, and mass wouldn't exist at all "were not light traveling at speeds equal to or slower than the speed of light squared." (Check it out; I am not making this up.)" "In a provocative footnote on page 120, Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist. (One of the world's great unsolved mysteries is why Dr. Callahan has never been honored with the Nobel Prize in physics for such an amazing and historic achievement.)" "It turns out that Phil Callahan wrote a book in 1984, which preceded the two discussed here. That book, Ancient Mysteries, Modern Visions, was previously out of print, but Acres U.S.A. reissued it in the latter part of 2000, so it's once again available. In this earlier work, Dr. Callahan explains, with considerable "scientific" detail, his theories of paramagnetism and the round towers of Ireland, the "real" meanings of Egyptian hieroglyphics and of the pyramids, the relationship between cathedral towers and the antennae of insects, and how he "proved" that particles moving faster than the speed of light (tachyons) actually exist, using only an "electrometer" and a Benjamin ficus tree. Furthermore, he explains how ancient Egyptian priests levitated people, lists the requirements for levitation and for levitating a person or object, and explains how levitation is directly related to paramagnetism. This book is quite entertaining and, at a cost of only $16.00, is certainly worth what amounts to the price of a couple of movie tickets." Not a single word has stated that Dr. Callahan is a fraud. The term "Expossing" here was used as an introduction for his discoveries in the field of science. The author of the article even recommends Dr. Callahan's books. Must be awful to live in your life. But here's a tip: It takes only a good jump to get rid of the shame and embarrassment. :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
My sides! HAHAHA! I just came from work and damn, you really hit me off guard. This is pure solid gold hahaha! Now everyone is looking at me and I must share the word. I blame your for this. So where is the link to that mythical institution? Too stupid to search on your own? How many times do you want to be spoonfed? As usual you have sent garbage. I have ask for a formal paper (not a newspaper), lab report etc... In conclusion: He hates atheism and prefers to lean more on the side of being a believer. Which means that as a believer, you will say that his researches are wrong, correct? :D I usually you are citing wikipedia ... where exactly your citation is talking about Einstein being jew? So youre saying that up until now you havent read one bit of its contents? Oh man, I will never forget your stupidity. :D It is a satire, they are making fun of him.... that's why they wrote ." (Check it out; I am not making this up.)" ...because it is really ridiculous bullshit :D Why do you think the enclose words like Scientific, Real, electrometer into quotation marks? :D Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
So where is the link to that mythical institution? Quit making me laugh already. For gods sake, I am dying of laughter over here. hahahaha! I have ask for a formal paper (not a newspaper), lab report etc... First off, the test was done even before there was an internet. Second, why would scientific institutions publish reports that will prove God? If you are looking for lab reports from non-Christian sources, then JAAR and JSSR are the finest ones that you could have. where exactly your citation is talking about Einstein being jew? "I consider this the greatest day of my life. Before, I have always found something to regret in the Jewish soul, and that is the forgetfulness of its own people. Today, I have been made happy by the sight of the Jewish people learning to recognize themselves and to make themselves recognized as a force in the world" -Einstein's word towards his fellow Jews He is born a Jew, practiced Judaism and was oppressed by the Nazi's because of it Hey, you skipped Darwin :D It is a satire, they are making fun of him And here is the part where I totally broke out of my chair. HAHAHA I cant stop, I literally broke from sheer hilarity! I thankyou for this fine moment. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Where is the mythical all-books-checking institution? Is it like with gods, angels, unicorn... that they are invisible? I have checked JSSR and JAAR, none of them reviews physics. None of them has physics board. They review board are people from field of theology, history and sociology... Read Einstein's personal letters. You will see that he did not believed in god. He did told so many times. In public he was neutral but in his private correspondence he mocked religions. You sent me link to webpage that mocks your bug king/ wizard... your fail.... Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Its been 11 days already. Do you actually intend to stay longer? Where is the mythical all-books-checking institution? Is it like with gods, angels, unicorn... that they are invisible? I gave you the link. I have checked JSSR and JAAR, none of them reviews physics. None of them has physics board. They review board are people from field of theology, history and sociology... Tell that to the scientists and professors who gave it the seal of approval Read Einstein's personal letters. You will see that he did not believed in god. He did told so many times. In public he was neutral but in his private correspondence he mocked religions. What? Like of how he started his own movement in revolutionizing religion? You sent me link to webpage that mocks your bug king/ wizard. Dont make me laugh, im not in the need for it Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Its been 11 days already. Do you actually intend to stay longer? I was on placement. I gave you the link. No, you did not. You gave me link to department of education homepage... and sorry there is not a single word about that magical institution. Tell that to the scientists and professors who gave it the seal of approval They did not approved physics. his article was about healing rocks and magic. Which goes under theology. He never published physics paper in physics/mathematics journal, never. Because he is a charlatan. What? Like of how he started his own movement in revolutionizing religion? Two years ago were released his personal letters with his friends. You should read the transcript.. Dont make me laugh, im not in the need for it I found it funny too, guy called "the dirt doctor" debunked you wizard :D Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
You gave me link to department of education homepage Its because they are, dumbass! The board of education are the ones responsible in checking the validity of every single published manuscript. This is the basics of political science and you can learn this in elementary. Go back to school. They did not approved physics It is approved by professors, scientists and doctors alike. Unless you can prove otherwise, it is a credible source. I would love to see your papers Two years ago were released his personal letters with his friends. You should read the transcript. "“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”" -Albert Einstein It goes without saying that he is against the traditional religion, and so he plan to change it. Fuck off, he is not a foolish atheist like you I found it funny too, guy called "the dirt doctor" debunked you wizard Stop embarrassing yourself. Just leave and never come back Side: yes, I believe in god
Its because they are, dumbass! The board of education are the ones responsible in checking the validity of every single published manuscript. This is the basics of political science and you can learn this in elementary. Go back to school. Sorry but that is simply wrong. There is no such department. It would be impossible to check everything. They would have to employ over a million experts and even more from supportive stuff... and off course because it is a super secret institution I assume that the complex is hidden somewhere under ground :D It is approved by professors, scientists and doctors alike. Unless you can prove otherwise, it is a credible source. I would love to see your papers None of them does physics not even one, They are Theologian thta know nothing about advanced particle physics... they do religions, they even have it in their name... I told you you have to read his private correspondence not propaganda. …The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this," “For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them, True Einstein, letters published many years after his death... http://rt.com/art-and-culture/ Your link about Callaghan leads to article called "Exposing Callaghan" ...it mocks his idiotic attempt of using high school physics in combination with misunderstanding of E=mc2 to delude himself that random readings from vegetables can be interpreted as Tachyons ...he could say that he detected unicorn farts. It would be exactly as valid discovery. Which is why no one in physics respects that deluded troll... I can't link you my papers, it is a simple precaution of not giving deluded religious fanatics my contact details. You can't even see mocking of moron like Callaghan so you wouldn't understand it anyway.. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
There is no such department. It would be impossible to check everything Guess what? There is and they can. I learned this in elementary. Go back to school, dumbfuck. None of them does physics not even one So, where are your papers? True Einstein, letters published many years after his death And so? did that made him any less religious? Your link about Callaghan leads to article called "Exposing Callaghan" ...it mocks his idiotic attempt of using high school physics in combination with I have no use for a repetitive joke. Just read then fuck off Side: yes, I believe in god
Guess what? There is and they can. I learned this in elementary. Go back to school, dumbfuck. so ... how is the department called? :D ...Wonderland? Mordor? Pandora? D So, where are your papers? As I said before I am not going to give you my name. You are illiterate religious zealot, it is like giving address of mine to a suicide bomber... And so? did that made him any less religious? Stating that all religions are bullshit and the idea of personal god is childish ...yeah it does makes him "less religious" I have no use for a repetitive joke. Just read then fuck off Yeah that is the paper that mocks that moron... :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
how is the department called? Its called "Department of Education". You can get them by call or by driving by their branch. As I said before I am not going to give you my name You do not even know the basics of political science nor of how the government works. And you fear having your name known? What exactly can someone gain from a load of hot air and ignorance? hahaha Stating that all religions are bullshit and the idea of personal god is childish What he loaths is the traditional views in religion. But heres a surpise: He avoids being called an atheist Yeah that is the paper that mocks that moron How long do you plan to keep the act? Side: yes, I believe in god
""Its called "Department of Education". You can get them by call or by driving by their branch."" How is the branch called? You are and illiterate and fanatical zealot, thinking that DoE has secret every-book-paper checking branch. For me (and most of sane people), you are mentally ill and mentally ill people tend to be unstable and dangerous. Therefore giving you my name or the name of Institution I am member of would be quite irresponsible. What he loaths is the traditional views in religion. But heres a surpise: He avoids being called an atheist in public yes, in public where he also talked nice about religions ..but in privacy it was quite different wasn't it... How long do you plan to keep the act? I don't have to, he is an obvious deluded moron. So his opinion does not matter. So you have as an evidence for existence of magical picture: Word of person who works for it's owner Dead scientist that left no evidence of "saying" that it's magical fake NASA scientist that does not exists Eye doctor... :D * bug scientist, you have accidentally exposed as a deluded idiot. to quote Carl Sagan ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"" ..yet you have failed to present even the "regular" one... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
How is the branch called? All the info that you will need From telephone number to address. Be creative in your denials You are and illiterate and fanatical zealot, thinking that DoE has secret every-book-paper checking branch. Either you live in a mountain, or you are just so ignorant that you cannot comprehend how the system works. Yes, the DoE has a copy of every book published. Why not leave the basement for once and actually read something informative? in public yes, in public where he also talked nice about religions ..but in privacy it was quite different wasn't it... Talked about nice things about religion? What are you talking about. He blatantly refused the old tradition of the Jewish society and avoided them. He was even nominated as a high ranking Jew but I dont even have to explain how it turn out. Historians all agree that he does not support the old ways but instead decided to make moves in improving it. Give up. Einstein is not on your side here I don't have to, he is an obvious deluded moron. So his opinion does not matter. HAHAHA! Well done! Well done, I say. Your irony has made me laugh once more hahahaha :D You do not know how the government works You call JSSR, JAAR and its professors and scientists flawed You refuse to read an article simply because of the title You made over 10 threads all of which you flee except for this last one You are still using the same argument since your first day And you call yourself an intelligent being? Thanks for the laugh. Now, entertain me again, please? :D Side: yes, I believe in god
All the info that you will need From telephone number to address. Be creative in your denials Not a single word about your magical branch of million secret experts... try again. 8Yes, the DoE has a copy of every book published. Why not leave the basement for once and actually read something informative? As far as I remember having a book and checking it for BS are two different things... Give up. Einstein is not on your side here I gave you link to direct translation of his private correspondence where he is mocking all religions and all views of personal gods... You on other hand said that he was religious and that he was jew trough all his life... You do not know how the government works You mean that I do not know about secret book agency hidden somewhere in DoE's basement?? You call JSSR, JAAR and its professors and scientists flawed I call them fully incompetent in Physics. You refuse to read an article simply because of the title which article? You made over 10 threads all of which you flee except for this last one does not even make sense. You are still using the same argument since your first day Because you failed to provide anything against them. And you call yourself an intelligent being?* Yes like to think about myself as about highly intelligent individual, which is not likely to be true in your case. You have said that the picture is magical. I have asked for evidence. You gave me none. It is not your fail, there is simply no evidence. I did check around and there are no reputable papers in any scientific databases. Nothing relevant, Just garbage on suspicious websites. Callahan's opinion on Theoretical Physics does not means anything same as yours... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Hey, nice formatting. Perfectly demonstrates how low your intelligence is Not a single word about your magical branch of million secret experts Even a dog can formulate a better excuse than this. HAHAHA! This is so much fun. :D I gave you link to direct translation of his private correspondence where he is mocking all religions and all views of personal gods...You on other hand said that he was religious and that he was jew trough all his life... Einstein stood up and spoke against the cruelty and stupidity of the modern religion. But guess what? Even the pope hates the church. But despite their hate, they are true to their faith and made actions to improve the forms of worship. A person that speaks against blind dogma is not automatically an atheist Give up, already. History cannot lie You mean that I do not know about secret book agency hidden somewhere in DoE's basement Secret book? LOL It was never hidden. And the fact that even a Grade school pupil knows about it makes you even funnier. hahaha! :D Yes like to think about myself as about highly intelligent individual, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! OH MY GOD I AM ROLLING ON THE FLOOR FROM PURE LAUGHTER HAHAHAHAH! MY SIDES! I CANT BREATHE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (J Sci Study Relig) is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell in the United States of America under the auspices of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, dedicated to publishing scholarly articles in the social sciences, including psychology, sociology and anthropology, devoted to the study of religion. Physical Review is an American peer-reviewed scientific journal established in 1893 by Edward Nichols. It publishes original research as well as scientific and literature reviews on all aspects of physics Divided in Physical Review C which deals with Nuclear Physics Physical Review D which deals with Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology Physical Review E which deals with Statistical, non linear, and soft matter physics Now, which one accepts papers on Physics and which one accepts papers on Healing rocks... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
Also interesting how your imaginary Jody B. Smith is in one "paper" a Philosophy professor (without any link to any institution) is in another paper NASA scientist that is also impossible to Google out anything about. José Aste Tonsmann of the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies which is a religious institution, and with background in Enviromental Scineces (glorified gardener) used >>> satelite technology <<< :D :D :D loool Richard Kuhn - Nobel Prize winner in chemistry awarded for work on Vitamins in 1915, died 50 years ago again with no qualification for stating something like that also as usual without any record of doing so. Philip Callahan by profession entomologist (bug science) ...did infrared exam on painting :D :D
Try harder :D What about Truck driver used cold fusion to detect black holes in her eyes :D :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1. José Aste Tonsmann was a former environmental scientist but he converted into the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies after he failed to explain the Tilma of Guadalupe. 2. Richard Kuhn died on 1967. Scientists began to test the Tilma after Pope Pius XII gave it the title "Empress of the Americans" in 1947. 3. What are you talking about? Dr. Philip Serna Callahan is a biophysicist at the University of Florida and an expert in infrared photography. Go ahead, give me more excuses. It is entertaining to watch how science will go against you. Side: yes, I believe in god
José Aste Tonsmann works and is paid by religious company, that is called as the picture, and that company is funded purely by religious organisations. He is paid for saying that it is magical.... sorry but are you serious :D ? Richard Kuhn his life work was on >> Vitamins<< and he never done a single paper about magic. Dr. Philip Serna Callahan http://gap.entclub.org/taxonomists/ he worked on bugs mainly, he also discovered magical features of some rocks :D And detected Tachyons :D :D :D Also "He has written two books dealing specifically with his discoveries there of the seemingly magical properties of the ancient Irish round towers and of certain rocks and rock powders. This is common for religious hoaxes, They use a name o scientist that exists and it is possible to see his name on first page of google search but if you check deeper you will see that the scientist works in completely unrelated field and most likely never even heard about the picture. Same with the NASA scientist that does not even exists. Only one who does "research" on that picture is Tosmann who is paid for promoting it's magical properties." :D :D :D :D Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
You can be sued for what you just said. If you claim that Jose Aste is being bribed, then you need some valid evidences for that. Do you have one? Indeed, Richard Kuhn never worked on magic, only facts. And the Guadalupe is a factual evidence of the paranormal. Dr. Philip Serna Callahan Qoute from your article: "He is the author of 106 scientific papers and 12 books on science and a full professor on the graduate faculty of the University of Florida. He is one of 5% of U.S. Scientists in the Who’s Who of Technology today. He retired from the USDA on June 20, 1986, and is now on the staff of the Olive W. Garvey Center for the improvement of Human Functioning, Inc., Wichita, Kansas as an infrared systems and low energy consultant." Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist. (One of the world's great unsolved mysteries is why Dr. Callahan has never been honored with the Nobel Prize in physics for such an amazing and historic achievement.) His background are both insects and physics, made major contributions in the field of science and a very well respected figure with valid studies about his claims. Where is the fault in his study again? Thats funny. You actually think that anyone can just point out a random person as witness? LOL Do you even understand how a person can be arrested for such an act? Can you even comprehend how the government ensures that every published book actually contains real facts? Thousands of publishers and authors has been sued for false information. And yet, the books about Gualupe remains untouched. Gee..I wonder why. P.S Can you be more creative in your denials? Im starting to get sick of you already. Side: yes, I believe in god
First he works with bugs, to be more accurate he is studying bugs behavior, nothing to do with painting at all. Second his biology background excludes any work of Theoretical Physics at all, Also his paper on Tachyon is a BS... he was "detecting" tachyons by connecting standard electro meter to a ficus plant... I think that is self explanatory... Book on Gualupe are religious stuff, they cannot be sued for being hoaxes. Also what is important there never were taken samples from that picture. Otherwise we both know that it would end up quickly as Turin did... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Looks like someone skipped the other scientists. Whats the problem? Cat got your tongue? 1. He is called "Biophysicist" because he knows how biology works. The Tilma of Guadalupe was made from the fibers of cactus that should have easily decomposed, but it didn't. Which is why he was called Doesnt mean your passion are insects, doesnt mean you dont know how plants work. 2. Qoute from your source says: "Dr. Callahan explains that a particle moving faster than the speed of light is called a tachyon, and a message sent by such a particle would actually arrive before it was sent. He also states that he published, in 1986, the first experimental proof that tachyon particles actually exist" Which means that despite the ridiculousness, he proved his claims with solid evidences. Religious books cannot be sued for inaccuracy? Really? Last time I checked, thousands of publishers had their licenses removed just because of mistranslations. The Guadalupe books involved the names of real men. If ever there was anything false, the government would easily ban it from public use. Its been more than 30 years but nothing happened. Try harder. You are not entertaining anyone. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
it was never tested in independent laboratory, just another fraud. They never even borrowed that to Randi's institution. It is evidence of miracle as me saying that I can walk trough walls (but I am not going to show you, you have to believe that)... I would like something more ... I don't know ... real? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
0
points
I would like to see evidence that NASA has tested it. I want to see laboratory reports, not random peoples opinion. No random articles lab reports. I can write article that I was been tested by NASA, JPL, ESA DARPA... and all of them examined me and sai that I can walk trough walls... Would My article about Me being tested, enough for you to believe me that I can walk trough the walls? I don't think so... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
It is same as random web article. No link to labs, lab statements, I say too that I was tested by NASA and they confirmed that I can walk trough walls. Do you want it in PDF ? ###NASA confirms that Mathele can walk trough walls and latest NASA lab tests shown that Mathlete can also fly!### see? now I have NASA confirmation that I can walk trough the walls. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
This one provided links for the study Check the references for it Side: yes, I believe in god
I have checked most of them. They are irrelevant/proprietary/doggy or just statements of random people. This is not how scientific examination is done. I also cannot find links to anything from NASA. I have sent request to NASA's library, asking if they ever heard about that painting. In your PDF is mentioned that the picture is made from materials that are not present on Earth, which laboratory did it? How many new different materials or elements were discovered? What are the properties of those new materials?. Where it was published? It seems to be made up fake. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
I also cannot find links to anything from NASA. Why would NASA publish a report that proves God? All scientists who converted after testing the Guadalupe were all rejected from the scientific community. Gee, I wonder why? In your PDF is mentioned that the picture is made from materials that are not present on Earth, which laboratory did it? None. It was done by individual scientists such as: Dr. Philip Callahan- biophysicist, USDA entomologist and NASA consultant Richard Kuhn - Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner in Physics for 1945 and Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann - ophthalmologist Denial can only take you so far Side: yes, I believe in god
Why would NASA publish a report that proves God? All scientists who converted after testing the Guadalupe were all rejected from the scientific community. Gee, I wonder why? Means nothing in real world. I read articles "NASA proves that Islam is the only true religion", all same fake as the PDF. After brief Googling I discovered: ""Dr. Philip Callahan"" There are two people with that name. First is Physicist working for NASA (on Radar systems) and has nothing to do with the fake thing. Second is a discredited weird man known for love to ghosts, magic, healing stones and by qualification he is Entomologist. That means that his area of study does not involves material sciece and he is not working for NASA he is working on ants and how they communicate and in spare time he writes funny books about the power of healing rocks... ""Richard Kuhn"" did not won Nobel prize in Physics but in Chemistry and that for discovery of several vitamins. Most important is there is no evidence that he ever examined that painting. Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann is not ophthalmologist but old system engineer who worked on maps in IBM... All you gave me means nothing. Why there are no independent testing institutes involved? Why so much fake? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
0
points
Dr. Philip Callahan"" There are two people with that name. First is Physicist working for NASA (on Radar systems) and has nothing to do with the fake thing. Second is a discredited weird man known for love to ghosts, magic, healing stones and by qualification he is Entomologist "in 1979 Philip Callahan, (biophysicist, USDA entomologist, NASA consultant) specializing in infrared imaging, was allowed direct access to visually inspect, and photograph, the image. He took numerous infrared photographs of the front of the tilma. Taking notes that were later published, his assistant noted that the original art work was neither cracked nor flaked, while later additions (gold leaf, silver plating the moon) showed serious signs of wear, if not complete deterioration. Callahan could not explain the excellent state of preservation of the un-retouched areas of the image on the tilma, particularly the upper two-thirds of the image. His findings, with photographs, were published in 1981." "Richard Kuhn"" did not won Nobel prize in Physics but in Chemistry and that for discovery of several vitamins. Most important is there is no evidence that he ever examined that painting. "in 1936 biochemist Richard Kuhn analyzed a sample of the fabric and announced that the pigments used were from no known source, whether animal, mineral or vegetable" Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann is not ophthalmologist but old system engineer who worked on maps in IBM... Then in 1929 and 1951 photographers found a figure reflected in the Virgin's eyes; upon inspection they said that the reflection was tripled in what is called the Purkinje effect, commonly found in human eyes.[54] An ophthalmologist, Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, later enlarged an image of the Virgin's eyes by 2500x and claimed to have found not only the aforementioned single figure, but images of all the witnesses present when the tilma was first revealed before Zumárraga in 1531, plus a small family group of mother, father, and a group of children, in the center of the Virgin's eyes, fourteen people in all Stop embarrasing yourself. The evidences are right in front of you Side: yes, I believe in god
Still being dishonest I see. Here your opponent notes that some data is unsourced, you use a wiki link to say it is despite your source backing Mathletes claim, you just omit that part so it appears toback you. Bold is mathletes italics is yours. "Richard Kuhn"" did not won Nobel prize in Physics but in Chemistry and that for discovery of several vitamins. Most important is there is no evidence that he ever examined that painting." in 1936 biochemist Richard Kuhn analyzed a sample of the fabric and announced that the pigments used were from no known source, whether animal, mineral or vegetable"-Wikipedia See where you started your quote? You left out what was right before it. Here is what you left out. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OurLadyof_Guadalupe#References "Numerous Catholic websites repeat an unsourced claim[56] that in 1936 biochemist Richard Kuhn analyzed a sample of the fabric and announced that the pigments used were from no known source, whether animal, mineral or vegetable." More evidence of your lack of credibility concerning the evidence on this subject. Your arguments are littered with these types of falsehoods as well as others. buh by;) Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
sigh Here are the discussions for it Ctrl+F + Richard Kuhn It is unsourced but they cannot prove it false either. I left it out to remain on track. But thanks for asking Side: yes, I believe in god
So he raises the issue of it being unsourced....so you completely ignore that, and to" remain on track" you repost the assertion he was contending, minus the part that confirms your opponents skepticism. So it doesn't matter your opponent found a legitimate contention with a piece of evidence you are just going to re assert the same evidence without addressing his point against it. Your logic there makes no sense. It makes more sense that you made a dishonest move to attempt to make it appear as if the evidence was sourced. If not why bother answer his question with your method at all? At the veryleast this is another example of you ignoring (until you were caught) a legitimate issue with your evidence. In the name of remaining on track...whatever track ignores legitimate claims of skeptifism if I were to hazard a guess. But you still continue with this assertion in spite of having no evidence to back your position....and try poor logic to justify your action. Your logic continues to make no sense as you then assert "but they cannot prove it false either." As if that has any bearing on the claim. It is called shifting the burden of proof, for an example look up "Russels teapot". To prove a claim as true one needs to support the claim, not being able to disprove it doesn't prove the original claim to be true. For instance, just because a believer or non believer cannot prove a diety to be true or false does not support the oppositions side. For instance I do not ask you to prove you're honest and using good logic in these matters, I just keep showing evidence to the contrary to back my claim. Your last post is another example of your use of fallacies to support your evidence. Burden of proof fallacy in case you missed it. buh by;) Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
0
points
Yes it does, apparently How long do you plan to deny the elephant in the room? Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
(1) English translation. (3) religious source (4) Religious source (6) Encyclopaedia Britanica it also lists floods of the myth surrounding the painting. (7) Website of painting's owner (8) Poetry (10) Book about History of Christianity in southern America. How is any of it Material science? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
I do not need evidence that the painting exists... I am sure that it exists. However I do demand evidence of it's supernatural proprieties , lab reposts, records of examinations done by proper labs, result sheets. Not random statements. You know that all information are the same Yes, everything you gave me was useless and/or fake. Painting is obviously fabricated. Do you have other evidence for god? I am sure that you can offer different "miracles". Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
However I do demand evidence of it's supernatural proprieties , lab reposts, records of examinations done by proper labs, result sheets. Read the Wikipedia page. Everything was discussed thoroughly. All of you are the same. You all ask for evidence of God but now that it is right in front of you, you all cower in denial. pity Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
sigh If you are trying to fool someone, it aint working. There was no "statements of random people but no evidence" all are valid conclusions made by well renowned scientists. Or are you prepared to say that their tests are flawed? Just give up already. You cant change the truth
Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
in 1979 Philip Callahan, (biophysicist, USDA entomologist, NASA consultant) specializing in infrared imaging, was allowed direct access to visually inspect, and photograph, the image. He took numerous infrared photographs of the front of the tilma. Summary Conclusions: (1) Support: The material of the support is soft to the touch (almost silken: MC; something like cotton: G) but to the eye it suggested a coarse weave of palm threads called "pita" or the rough fiber called "cotense" (MC), or a hemp and linen mixture (R). It was traditionally held to be made from ixtle, an agave fiber. (2) Ground, or primer: R asserted (MC and PC contra) by ocular examination that the tilma was primed, though with primer "applied irregularly." R does not clarify whether his observed "irregular" application entails that majorly the entire tilma was primed, or just certain areas – such as those areas of the tilma extrinsic to the image – where PC agrees had later additions. MC, alternatively, observed that the image had soaked through to the reverse of the tilma.[26] (3) Under-drawing: PC asserted there was no under-drawing. (4) Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, but in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush"). (5) Condition of the surface layer: PC reports that the un retouched portions of the image, particularly the blue mantle and the face, are in a very good state of preservation, with no flaking or peeling. The three most recent inspections (G, PC and R) agree (i) that additions have been made to the image (gold leaf added to the sun's rays-which has flaked off; silver paint or other material to depict the moon - which has discolored; and the re-construction or addition of the angel supporting the Marian image), and (ii) that portions of the original image have been abraded and re-touched in places. Some flaking is visible, though only in retouched areas (mostly along the line of the vertical seam, or at passages considered to be later additions). (6) Varnish: The tilma has never been varnished. (7) Binding Medium: R provisionally identified the pigments and binding medium (distemper) as consistent with 16th-century methods of painting sargas (MC, PC contra for different reasons), but the color values and luminosity are exceptional. The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper). Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[27] Tüchlein paintings are very fragile, and are not well preserved,[28] so the tilma's color values and state of preservation are exceptional. . . . What were you saying again? Side: yes, I believe in god
1979 Philip Callahan, (biophysicist, USDA entomologist, NASA consultant) Wrong, they are two different people http://radar.jpl.nasa.gov/people/ Respected NASA radar alghorythm sceitist and http://gap.entclub.org/taxonomists/ Entomologist If first line of your article is fake, then there is no reason for believing the rest. It is certainly fabricated as the person in the front of it but I am good person and I read what you posted. It says that it is ordinary picture. Than You. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
One is NASA consultant and the other one is Entomologist, very different people with very different skills, so it is a bit confusing because it is not clear which one it is. The conclusion that you have posted, stated that it is an ordinary painting, nothing special, no moving eyes, heart beating, etc... Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
"The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper). Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[27] Tüchlein paintings are very fragile, and are not well preserved,[28] so the tilma's color values and state of preservation are exceptional." No cotton tilma can survive 300 years of exposure to human contact, insect, fire, bomb attack, and acid spill. A replica was made, once, but it lasted only for 8 years till it decayed completely. But here, we have a 500 year old painting which is still pristine in colors and strength. Tell me more of how that it is an ordinary painting Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Just well done painting, nothing really special, these things happen all the time. It also says that the painting is peeling off and it could have been multiple times refurbished. No cotton tilma can survive It can stay thousands of years, it depends on primer. is still pristine in colors and strength. it is not, it is falling apart and peeling off... it is right in your report. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
1. Wheres the evidence that Primer can stop decay? Point of primer is to make colours stick to material and to prolong lifespan of painting... 2. A retouched painting does not give the mantle a longer lifespan Retouching means fixing. So they were repairing that picture, several times... Why miracles needs fixing ??? Therefore there is nothing special about that picture. Any picture ca stay for so long. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1. You're making things up, aren't you? First and foremost; nothing can ever protect a painting from age and exposure to the elements for hundreds of years, not even glass. Second; I cannot find any study that says the Guadalupe was covered in Primer. Can you point it out for me? 2. Retouching simply means that the picture would be repaired. That doesnt mean that the cloth itself can be fixed. Quit denying already. We havent even tackled the microscopic designs yet. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Retouched means repaired and not just once, with repairing paintings can live forever... There are many other pictures in castles and galleries that are much older that your bogus painting. Why didn't he mentioned, that it has heart beats, eyes moves? Because it is a bullshit. As he said it is ordinary picture that was well cared of... no magic, no microscopic designs, moving eyes, nothing... lies lies lies... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
You have no idea how retouching works, do you? To retouch a painting is to simply repair the paints and cover the stains. Even with todays technology, it is impossible to restore a painting back to its former glory, let alone save it from decay. You seem to have skipped the "primer" part. Spare me your denials, it is not amusing to watch. Either you admit the existence of the paranormal, or keep on embarrassing yourself; your choice Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
It isnt an old picture; it is the Lady of Guadalupe. And since you cannot argue any further, I guess you know what that means, right? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
Side: yes, I believe in god
I made the link work. That PDF is same as you sent me before, contains 4x word NASA but no scientist names =, no lab name, no project number nothing, just the word NASA. Full of shit an prayers... All claims there are bullshit or Callaghan is lying... which is it? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
Oftalmological studies realized on the eyes of Mary, have demonstrated that as a light, was placed near to the eye, the retina contracted and as it was furthered away , the retina dilated, exactly as happens with a live eye. Callaghan said no word about it no matter that he used bright light and microscope... 2.The temperature of the fibre of maguey which was used to make the Tilma maintains a constant temperature of 36.6 degrees, the same temperature as that of a body of a living person. It would glow under infra red, impossible to miss, why didn't he said a word? 3. One of the doctors who has analyzed the Tilma, had placed a stethoscope under the belt of the vests of Mary (sign of her pregnancy) and had heard the beating of a heart that rhythmically were repeated at 115 pulsations per minute, the same as those of a baby in the womb of the mother. Callaghan is again not talking about it... yet the heartbeat would cause unmistakable distortion... why he skipped something like that completely? 4. There are no signs of paint on the cloth. There are no traces of a paint brush nor of other known painting techniques. I quote Callaghan " Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush")." scientific studies have not obtained information o the colours that form the image, nor on the style use to paint it. There are no traces of a paint brush nor of other known painting techniques. The scientists of NASA confirm that the materials that compose the colours do not belong to any of the elements known on Earth. I quote Callaghan "The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper)" so on so on ...lies lies lies... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
0
points
Callaghan said no word about it no matter that he used bright light and microscope.. Thats because Callahan was not the scientist behind it. It was done by Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann. Then in 1929 and 1951 photographers found a figure reflected in the Virgin's eyes; upon inspection they said that the reflection was tripled in what is called the Purkinje effect, commonly found in human eyes.[54] An ophthalmologist, Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, later enlarged an image of the Virgin's eyes by 2500x and claimed to have found not only the aforementioned single figure, but images of all the witnesses present when the tilma was first revealed before Zumárraga in 1531, plus a small family group of mother, father, and a group of children, in the center of the Virgin's eyes, fourteen people in all It would glow under infra red, impossible to miss, why didn't he said a word? He did actually: >in 1979 Philip Callahan, (biophysicist, USDA entomologist, NASA consultant) specializing in infrared imaging, was allowed direct access to visually inspect, and photograph, the image. He took numerous infrared photographs of the front of the tilma. Taking notes that were later published, his assistant noted that the original art work was neither cracked nor flaked, while later additions (gold leaf, silver plating the moon) showed serious signs of wear, if not complete deterioration. Callahan could not explain the excellent state of preservation of the un-retouched areas of the image on the tilma, particularly the upper two-thirds of the image. His findings, with photographs, were published in 1981. >Dr. Philip Serna Callahan, who photographed the icon under infrared light, declared from his photographs that portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle had been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no visible brush strokes Callaghan is again not talking about it... yet the heartbeat would cause unmistakable distortion... why he skipped something like that completely? Callahan is not the only scientist who examined it. " Brush-work: R suggested (PC contra) there was some visible brushwork on the original image, in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush")." You did not read the rest, did you? (5) Condition of the surface layer: PC reports that the un retouched portions of the image, particularly the blue mantle and the face, are in a very good state of preservation, with no flaking or peeling. The three most recent inspections (G, PC and R) agree (i) that additions have been made to the image (gold leaf added to the sun's rays-which has flaked off; silver paint or other material to depict the moon - which has discolored; and the re-construction or addition of the angel supporting the Marian image), and (ii) that portions of the original image have been abraded and re-touched in places. Some flaking is visible, though only in retouched areas (mostly along the line of the vertical seam, or at passages considered to be later additions). (6) Varnish: The tilma has never been varnished. The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper) Read further: Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[27] Tüchlein paintings are very fragile, and are not well preserved,[28] so the tilma's color values and state of preservation are exceptional. You keep on saying its a lie; i dont think you know what that word means. I know denial once I saw it, though Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
You did not even read my post, did you? The eye examination was not done by Callahan, but by other doctors like Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann. Truth is bitter to those who fear it Side: yes, I believe in god
Dr. Callaghan did examined eyes, it is in his report, the only thing he said about eyes is (and I quote): ... there was some visible brushwork on the original image, but in a minute area of the image ("her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush")... ordinary painted eyes... see... Wikipedia lies... and you are lying too... Where is Tonsmanns report? Does it even exist? Like the NASA test that did not happen? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Callahan is not an eye specialist. While he studied the eyes of the Guadalupe, his findings are still small when compared to Tonsmann's Keep on denying, its not like ive never heard of them before. come on, you know that science does not support your belief anymore. I wonder what you're gonna say next Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
"In the last 15 years, some other images have also been found in photographs of the Virgin's eyes. Such photographs have been amplified by computers, by Dr. Aste Tonsmann, a very well known specialist." What were you saying again? Just give up already. Nothing can break the truth Side: yes, I believe in god
What were you saying again? I just said that I want report not blob, some ones idea, or random garble. I want report that can be linked directly to Tonsmann... Do you even understand the concept old study or report? Because until now you only sent broken Wikipedia article, PDF with fake data, Calaghan's report that it is ordinary picture and dead end website... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
It is a report. But if you want further discussions. Then here Up until now you claim Wikipedia is fake, started a debate that no one responded to, claim that Callahan is a fraud and rejected all researches done. Science is no longer with you. You can stop posting now. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
What I meant by report/paper is that you are reading about finding from the author in structured form. NOT an article where unknown person is talking about what he heard about something... Like when you read paper done by Callaghan then he describes that painting as ordinary painting done by brush, but in the PDF you gave me you can read that Callaghan can't identify the material, it is done by unknown method bla bla bla.... just pile of shit that has nothing to do with original Callaghan findings. That is why I am asking for papers/reports. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
His analysis was never published in academic works. But his lab reports are available online Here is the video of Dr. José Aste Tönsmann himself admitting the divinity of the Guadalupe...if you are interested. I wonder when will your denials end. Side: yes, I believe in god
The picture was photo shopped, picture suppose to be from digital infra red camera yet magnification is blur instead of being squared. I saw better fakes before... is it your work? Most importantly José Aste Tonsmann of the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies ...which makes everything he says just marketing slogan... That is probably why Callaghan reported that it is just ordinary picture and person who is an employee of "Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies" fakes results and says that it is magical. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
It came from wikipedia actually. They used that picture as their source of information. Actually, Jose Aste converted to the Guadalupan Studies in 1979 after he failed explaining the Marian image. And of course, you have other evidences that would prove him fake, correct? Like ive never heard of that one before Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Wrong arguments. Are you saying that Evolution is false because Charles Darwin is a theologist? He was trained as a priest, because of his father but he did not have profit from proclaiming some product magical and being employed by that product's owner Are you saying that Einstein is a fake because he is a Jew? Completely incomparable his work has nothing do to do with religions. however your pseudo-scientist is employed by company that owns the painting and that makes his opinion irrelevant and worthless. What about offering me article in peer reviewed science journal about your painting (by science I mean real hard science like Chemistry, Physics... not "Creation Science" or "Religious Science", Journal like Nature, Photon...etc.)? There must be hunders of them... give me some. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
He was trained as a priest, Charles Darwin was never a priest. He is a theologist of great faith Completely incomparable his work has nothing do to do with religions. Actually, Einstein used his work to promote Religion- after he defected from the Jewish society He is anything but an atheist. Does that make him a fraud? however your pseudo-scientist is employed by company that owns the painting and that makes his opinion irrelevant and worthless. You can be sued for what you just said. If you are gonna call him fake, you need some evidence for that. And by the way, let me remind you that he is not the only scientist who tested the Guadalupe. If you are unsatisfied with Jose; Richard Kuhn- the Nobel Prize winner- will be a great start Side: yes, I believe in god
Charles Darwin was never a priest. He is a theologist of great faith Nice try, Darwin studied medicine and natural history, he was forced by his father to became Anglican pastor. Actually, Einstein used his work to promote Religion- after he defected from the Jewish society He is anything but an atheist. Does that make him a fraud? And here we go again with anonymous Wikipedia Article. Allow me please to quote a bit from Einsten's personal corespondence "...God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish...." You can be sued for what you just said. If you are gonna call him fake, you need some evidence for that. And by the way, let me remind you that he is not the only scientist who tested the Guadalupe. If you are unsatisfied with Jose; Richard Kuhn- the Nobel Prize winner- will be a great start I cannot be sued for stating obvious thing, There is no evidence that Richard Kuhn ever did anything with that picture. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Nice try, Darwin studied medicine and natural history, he was forced by his father to became Anglican pastor. "Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."" Surprise me with your excuses Allow me please to quote a bit from Einsten's personal corespondence Allow me to do the same: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. -Albert Eintein He is not an Atheist and never was I cannot be sued for stating obvious thing, There is no evidence that. Richard Kuhn ever did anything with that picture. Its practically just one click away Side: yes, I believe in god
Jackpot Recently our findings were confirmed when the Spanish-language magazine Proceso reported the results of a secret study of the Image of Guadalupe. It had been conducted - secretly - in 1982 by art restoration expert José Sol Rosales. Rosales examined the cloth with a stereomicroscope and observed that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp or cactus fiber. It had been prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate), and the image was then rendered in distemper (i.e., paint consisting of pigment, water, and a binding medium). The artist used a "very limited palette," the expert stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras"), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century regular picture... source (El Vaticano 2002) Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
You mean this source? It became a laughing stock in Christian forums actually "The article conveniently ignores virtually all the arguments going the other way and chooses to use evidence that I've seen effectively rebutted. Sorry I can't add more than that at the moment; I'm really mentally tired. Googling the tilma online will bring up some more articles for you though, rebutting many of these points and raising important evidence this article has completely ignored. Erg, never mind, I'll help a little bit. A couple points of evidence the article ignored: First, the tilma the image of Guadaloupe is imprinted on is made of a material that only can survive 20 years, yet this tilma has survived 400. The image also was kept of out doors for many years. People tried to recreate the circumstances of that with other images of Our Lady of Guadaloupe on tilmas of the same material, and they left their images outside, and the images were completely destroyed by the elements within one year, if I recall correctly. The article completely ignored those tests and the material survival issue. Also the fact that the image of Our Lady of Guadaloupe is in perfect condition aside from cracking they argue they can find along one vertical line. For crying out loud . Furthermore, virtually the entirety of the image has been shown to lack any brush strokes. Note that the article you brought up only mentions apparent brush strokes around the eyes. Very, very few parts of the image show any evidence of brush strokes. The only conclusion drawn by other studies is that the image is like that of a stamp. It appears to have been "stamped" or imprinted as one whole image, colors and outlines and everything, in an instant upon the tilma beneath it. That, of course, is completely impossible except for modern technology completely unavailable in the 16th century. The article has lots of holes and bias because it's trying to make a case for one position. It's conveniently ignoring the strong evidence going against what it's trying to say. I'm tired so I won't go into the other issues, but there are good articles online that say much more on the matters raised in that article." -http://forums.catholic.com/ Side: yes, I believe in god
My source is quoted from EL VATICANO issue of 2002, José Sol Rosales and Callaghan both stated that it is ordinary picture painted by brush... your answer to that? random forum blob from Catholic.com, which cannot even be taken seriously... Now there are two image/painting experts saying that it is ordinary picture... Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
First off: Link? Second: You did not read the forum post have you? Notice how the article was made since 2002, and yet, Wikipedia remains on the side of the Guadalupe and the article did not received much views at all? Stop making a fool of yourself. You're an eyesore Side: yes, I believe in god
Wikipedia has no side, it is by people edited encyclopaedia if you check the editor forum under your so beloved bogus article about that painting you will see a lot of editing history and controversy. Both Callaghan and Rosales (whose finding were published by Vatican) stated that it is a regular picture, painting from 16th century. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
uadalupe has been tested and proven true beyond doubt YOUR OWN Callghan says that it is ordinary picture! http://www.invicchio.it/dimorarivotorto/ Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Spare me the excuses. If you have the courage to make an argument using that, then surely you can prove the credibility of your source Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Proceso is unbiased magazine with no record of favouritism towards specific religion or cult. I gave you name of source and article number. Why you cannot give me one scientific journal (real science no magic or religions)? There must be so many of them, such "miracle" I am sure that the Nature has article about it :D :D Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
So from "El Vaticano", your source is now "Proceso"? :D "Nobody argues that Proceso is not a reputable magazine, but it is not a scientific journal, and the interview it gives with G-V is far from establishing the validity of what G-V's study is supposed to show. In fact there is no indication that G-V ever published his "study" (with or without the photographs he claimed to interpret). The Proceso journalist (Rodrigo Vera) was shown one photograph by G-V, but all he could make out was the date 1556 and the initials MA - which proves nothing since Vera saw no image on the photograph." :D :D Hey, how long do you plan to avoid mentioning El Vaticano? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Do you even realize that you did not even sent Wikipedia article but citation from chat forum of anonymous people? Only thing I am asking all the time is to prove me that magic is real, you sent PDF with bullshit that you couldn't not prove, then you send Callaghan's summary that says "it is ordinary picture". In between you sent Jose "the employee", chat from wikipeda forum... WHY IS SO HARD TO PROVIDE real report, from real scientific journal (NOT religions, creation.., astrology REAL scientific journal)? Where are they? Why they do not exist? Because you stupid picture is obvious forgery... bullshit made up for primitives to make them pay. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Its not a chat forum at all. It was posted by the very authors of Wikipedia pages. They are well renowned for their intricate but neutral researches and they have a respected title in the cyberworld. The evidence are all against you. Its time to stop posting and accept the fact that science is no longer on your side. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
4
points
2
points
1
point
0
points
1
point
You can't possibly know that. Like how you can't possibly know that something did create us. I have no way of proving for sure that some all powerful creature created everything and controls everything but I don't need to because it is so ridiculous I don't need to in the same way don't need to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. What are we We are what are minds labels the collection of our parts to be. The mind is the creator, nothing else. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Like how you can't possibly know that something did create us. I have no way of proving for sure that some all powerful creature created everything and controls everything but I don't need to because it is so ridiculous I don't need to in the same way don't need to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Is he claiming that a specific God created us? Is he claiming we were created at all? Side: yes, I believe in god
Like how you can't possibly know that something did create us. We all know for a fact that something created us... We just don't know what... Well, I think I have a pretty good idea, but you'll have to read my other argument to see it. I have no way of proving for sure that some all powerful creature created everything and controls everything but I don't need to because it is so ridiculous I don't need to in the same way don't need to prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. You don't need to prove God's existence any more than you need to prove your own. We are what are minds labels the collection of our parts to be. The mind is the creator, nothing else. And the mind is intelligent, is it not? "The world being created randomly and accidentally, is like a monkey sitting at a typewriter and accidentally typing an entire encyclopedia." I'd like to extend on that though and say that at least the monkey is intelligent. Side: yes, I believe in god
I can't but I do not see how it is necessary. Hmm... So you can't name a single unintelligent thing on this planet that has created something with intelligence? Yet you believe that something unintelligent created the entire universe. Organisms just evolved over time. Evolution does not contradict a creator. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
I'm not saying anything created us, intelligent or unintelligent. It is illogical to say that an omnipotent being that could do anything would go through the long process of creating us through millions of years of evolution when it could of just created us from nothing instantly. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
I'm not saying anything created us, intelligent or unintelligent. So are you saying that we have always existed? It is illogical to say that an omnipotent being that could do anything would go through the long process of creating us through millions of years of evolution when it could of just created us from nothing instantly. Time is just an illusion. The earth grows organisms. It is not likely that a god would place humans on the earth, but let plants grow from the earth. We did not come into the universe. We came out of it, or rather, out with it. Life repeats the out, in, out pattern. You come out of your father and into your mother, then out of your mother, then into the ground (after living a life on earth of course)... And I personally believe, that from there the pattern continues. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
So are you saying that we have always existed? No we just came into being gradually as we evolved from single celled organisms to more advanced creatures without a creators guiding hand. Time is just an illusion. The earth grows organisms. It is not likely that a god would place humans on the earth, but let plants grow from the earth. We did not come into the universe. We came out of it, or rather, out with it. Life repeats the out, in, out pattern. You come out of your father and into your mother, then out of your mother, then into the ground (after living a life on earth of course)... And I personally believe, that from there the pattern continues. So you're saying that God didn't create us we just came from what God created (the Earth)? In that case if you can admit that God could have just let us come into existence and not have done anything to make it happen himself then surely you can admit that we could have come into existence without the help of a God at all? Side: no,I don't beleive in god
No we just came into being gradually as we evolved from single celled organisms to more advanced creatures without a creators guiding hand. So you are saying that the universe always existed? So you're saying that God didn't create us we just came from what God created (the Earth)? In that case if you can admit that God could have just let us come into existence and not have done anything to make it happen himself then surely you can admit that we could have come into existence without the help of a God at all? If you were to look at an oak tree, you would see what an acorn has become. They are not two separate things, but rather an oak tree is just a grown up acorn. And on that oak tree are leaves, twigs and more acorns. Those are not separate from the tree, but are part of the tree... They ARE the tree. Eventually acorns fall off and grow into oak trees themselves, giving us the illusion of separate trees... But if those acorns that are now oaks once belonged to a single oak tree, then they are still that one tree. It's like cutting a pizza into slices. You have different slices, but they are still the same pizza. Well, everything you see on this planet grew from this planet, just like acorns growing from a single tree. We as humans, grew from the combination of our father's sperm and our mother's egg. We ARE those things, and those are part of our parents. And everything in our universe came from a single point, the Big Bang, if you believe in that. That single point was the acorn from which everything in the universe came from. That creative force, whether it was from two atoms, God, whatever, is as much US, as an acorn is an oak tree. Everything in this universe is ONE. You see, we complain that there is no evidence of God... But as it turns out, if this theory is correct... Then we ARE God. Everything is God and we are everything. Religions have been saying this for thousands of years. Though, I would say that no religion is entirely correct, therefore there is no need to commit to a single one. So if you look up into the sky, you will see stars and planets that came from the exact same point that you did, the seed of creation. Those stars are not miles away from you, they simply are you... And so is everything else, because everything you see is just an oak that was once an acorn. "Science and religion are two different languages telling the same story." Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
So you are saying that the universe always existed? No it came into being through the big bang. Well, everything you see on this planet grew from this planet, just like acorns growing from a single tree. We as humans, grew from the combination of our father's sperm and our mother's egg. We ARE those things, and those are part of our parents. And everything in our universe came from a single point, the Big Bang, if you believe in that. That single point was the acorn from which everything in the universe came from. That creative force, whether it was from two atoms, God, whatever, is as much US, as an acorn is an oak tree. Everything in this universe is ONE. How is this just a more poetic way of putting the Big Bang? Just because everything shares a same origin and in that sense is one and the same does not mean that what we originated from was God. Two atoms colliding would have been a random accident between two insentient things. Then we ARE God. Everything is God and we are everything. This is just a way of looking at the universe. This is pantheism which is just as Richard Dawkins says just is "sexed up Atheism". Science and religion are two different languages telling the same story. Religion tells nothing other than lies. It was just made up to control others. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
No it came into being through the big bang. Okay, thanks for agreeing with me. How is this just a more poetic way of putting the Big Bang? I never said the Big Bang didn't happen. I believe it did. Just because everything shares a same origin and in that sense is one and the same does not mean that what we originated from was God. Name something intelligent that has come from something unintelligent. This is pantheism which is just as Richard Dawkins says just is "sexed up Atheism". Richard Dawkins has a one track mind. You'd do well not to allow his thoughts to be your thoughts. Religion tells nothing other than lies. It was just made up to control others. Religions have taught for thousands of years that everything is one. Now science is agreeing with them. It is clear that the power of religion has been abused, but you don't have to be part of a religion to believe in a god... Plus, you're a Buddhist. That's a religion, whether you accept or not. Every time you slam religions, you sound more and more like a hypocrite. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
I never said the Big Bang didn't happen. I believe it did. And I never said that you didn't. I merely said you were just saying it in a more poetic way. Name something intelligent that has come from something unintelligent. Just because something has not happened since it did doesn't mean it never happened at all. Richard Dawkins has a one track mind. You'd do well not to allow his thoughts to be your thoughts. I am not just imitating what he says. When I first heard about Pantheism my thoughts were similar to that, he just put them into good words. Now science is agreeing with them. At least 80% of the time science disagrees with them. Plus, you're a Buddhist. That's a religion That's arguable. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
And I never said that you didn't. I merely said you were just saying it in a more poetic way. That sounds kind of like a compliment. Thanks! lol The Big Bang doesn't disprove God. In my opinion, it actually reinforces it. Just because something has not happened since it did doesn't mean it never happened at all. Then you can agree that the argument that we came from something unintelligent takes as much faith as claiming that God exists, because neither is observable to humans? If we were to base our theory off of the observable (as is done with most theories), then we would conclude that nothing intelligent has ever come from something unintelligent, therefore the pattern of intelligence must have started from something with intelligence. I am not just imitating what he says. When I first heard about Pantheism my thoughts were similar to that, he just put them into good words. Some pantheists believe in an afterlife. Atheists believe in neither a God nor an afterlife, so Dawkins' comment was ignorant. If it were the case that no pantheists believe in an afterlife, then you could not label me a pantheist... Although, I don't consider myself to be a pantheist anyways. I think that giving my beliefs a name is unnecessary. At least 80% of the time science disagrees with them. At least 80% of the time scientists disagree with them... Not science. Science cannot disprove the existence of a God, no matter how hard they try. God could be totally different from how religions describe him. That's arguable. No... It's not. You either are a Buddhist (religious) or not (non-religious). Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Then you can agree that the argument that we came from something unintelligent takes as much faith as claiming that God exists, because neither is observable to humans? OK but the idea that the universe just came into existence on its own seems a lot more logical. I mean if the universe were intelligently created then why is life so crap? If we were to base our theory off of the observable (as is done with most theories), then we would conclude that nothing intelligent has ever come from something unintelligent, therefore the pattern of intelligence must have started from something with intelligence. No because if we were to go by the observable then God wouldn't exist because we have never seen supernatural or magic powers that have command other things and can make things happen magically through their will alone. Some pantheists believe in an afterlife. Atheists believe in neither a God nor an afterlife, so Dawkins' comment was ignorant. Incorrect all you need to be an Atheist is a disbeliever of God(s), you do not have to disbelieve anything other than that to class as an Atheist. Very few Atheists believe in an afterlife, particularly in the West and not with New Atheists but it is still possible. Science cannot disprove the existence of a God, no matter how hard they try. No but they can make him seem unlikely. I think it is highly unlikely and omnipotent being would go to all of the trouble of creating the world through the big bang, taking millions of years when he could of just created it with the click of his fingers from nothing. No... It's not. You either are a Buddhist (religious) or not (non-religious). Ever heard of secular Buddhism? I do not feel religious because I do not worship anything. I am philosophical not religious. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
OK but the idea that the universe just came into existence on its own seems a lot more logical. I mean if the universe were intelligently created then why is life so crap? Life is only crap if you live it like crap. The majority of the problems in the world are as a direct result from our bad decisions. Plus, if God does exist and life is eternal, then what is there to complain about? No because if we were to go by the observable then God wouldn't exist because we have never seen supernatural or magic powers that have command other things and can make things happen magically through their will alone. If everyone saw the world in black and white, they would not know about color. Some things we just can't comprehend. Also, maybe we are seeing "God"... We just don't know it. Incorrect all you need to be an Atheist is a disbeliever of God(s), you do not have to disbelieve anything other than that to class as an Atheist. I have never met an atheist who believed in an afterlife. God doesn't have to be the bearded man in the clouds that you picture. God could be without form. Pure energy. If there is an afterlife, that would be kind of supernatural, don't you think? No but they can make him seem unlikely. Maybe as far as the gods of our world's religions go. I think it is highly unlikely and omnipotent being would go to all of the trouble of creating the world through the big bang, taking millions of years when he could of just created it with the click of his fingers from nothing. How do you know that? He may not even have fingers. Ever heard of secular Buddhism? I do not feel religious because I do not worship anything. I am philosophical not religious. Everyone is philosophical. That doesn't mean you are good at it though. You may enjoy Buddhist way of thought, but that doesn't make you a Buddhist. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
The majority of the problems in the world are as a direct result from our bad decisions Very true but the mind has loads of delusions which cause or tempt us to make these bad decisions. If God exists he should have made all sentient beings immune to them. Some things we just can't comprehend The actions of God being beyond human comprehension always is the excuse Theists make when bizarre things are pointed out about the idea of Gods action. If there is an afterlife, that would be kind of supernatural, don't you think? Again what makes some one Atheist is not the disbelief in the supernatural but merely the disbelief in deities. I know Atheists who believe in Ghosts. How do you know that? He may not even have fingers. When I said "click of his fingers" I was using it as a figure of speech. You may enjoy Buddhist way of thought, but that doesn't make you a Buddhist. I don't just enjoy Buddhist way of though but participate in it and (at least try my best to) lead a Buddhist lifestyle. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
Very true but the mind has loads of delusions which cause or tempt us to make these bad decisions. If God exists he should have made all sentient beings immune to them. As Alan Watts said, imagine that you go to sleep and within a single dream, you can live out 100 years worth of doing whatever you want. You would have a blast the first time. You'd probably do it a few more times after that. Then after a while, you'd want a surprise. Make it a little more exciting, but still have some control. You'd come out of that somewhat satisfied, but you'd want more. Finally, you'd make it so that everything was a surprise. Remove all control. You would dream the dream that we are currently living. The ultimate reality... Playing that we aren't God. http://www.youtube.com/ The actions of God being beyond human comprehension always is the excuse Theists make when bizarre things are pointed out about the idea of Gods action. Tell me what is inside a black hole. Scientists believe it may be more universes. Is that not beyond comprehension? Imagine our universe being infinite. That's what many people believe. Isn't that beyond comprehension? How about explaining color to a blind man... Wouldn't that be beyond his comprehension? The only god that you can comprehend is the one from our world's religions, but what makes you think that he is anything like them? Again what makes some one Atheist is not the disbelief in the supernatural but merely the disbelief in deities. I know Atheists who believe in Ghosts. Name an atheist who believes in an afterlife. When I said "click of his fingers" I was using it as a figure of speech So how do you know that the Big Bang wasn't God's way of clicking his fingers? Maybe he didn't want everything to be created instantly. Do you picture God being impatient? Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
2
points
I would imagine that everything is evidence of agreater being. I would imagine personal testimonies to be subjective evidence for somebody. There are logical arguments for the existence of a higher power. Something unintelligent can't create something intelligent is one of the few arguments. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Even though I do believe in the existence of God. The Question weather I believe in God or not is rather irrelevant. If God exists, the real question should be "do you like God or not", "Do you believe Him to be a good God or Not" "Should I fear God or not". Otherwise the very idea of fearing, loving or living for someone or something that does not exist waists time of even debating. If you don't believe in God, this debate seems rather meaningless to have. More importantly, for those of the more factually minded, it should be common sense to realize that my profound belief in something does not constitute it's reality. Either i'm right in my belief (regardless of how/why I believe it) or i'm profoundly wrong. It takes more courage to consider fallacies in one's perceptions and beliefs than it does to turn a blind eye. If my belief cannot stand up to the truth, than I should not want to believe it. I would say the real question now is, what are the consequences of me being right or wrong in that belief? Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Jesus existed. No question. Jesus taught. 100%. Jesus died. Most certainly. Jesus came back to life. For definite... Can one of you non-believers really say, with proof, that this never happened? More to the point, how could this have happened without some divine interference, from God? Side: yes, I believe in god
You are the one asserting a claim which places the burden of proof upon you, not the other way around. Were you to present any actual evidence whatsoever (which you have not), then it would be the burden of negation to disprove or discredit that evidence. As the matter stands, the utter lack of evidence is more than adequate basis for disbelief. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
I do not doubt that an historical Jesus lived, but there is zero evidence that a biblical Jesus actually existed. That someone named Jesus taught and was killed for his teachings is verifiable by sources external to the Bible. That this individual was a "son of God" and that he was resurrected after death is entirely unsubstantiated by anything but the Bible (and citing the Bible to defend the Bible is a logical fallacy). Moreover, there is no proof that the historical Jesus we know of is at all an indication of divine influence called "God". Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
That's your job, not his. He is claiming that biblical Jesus didn't exist because there is nothing that supports it. If you want to claim that a biblical Jesus existed you need to provide some evidence, not him. He has already stated that there is no evidence to support a biblical Jesus, there is nothing left for him to prove. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
You cant prove a negative. That's like asking some one to prove that reindeer can't fly. Sure, you could do an experiment where you take 100 reindeer up to the top of the Empire State Building and say "OK number one it's your turn......jump"!!! and then note " Number one cannot fly". OK "Number two, it's your turn". And after a slight nudge, note " Number two cannot fly". And so on. If none of the 100 reindeer can fly, that doesn't prove that reindeer can't fly, that only proves that those 100 reindeer can't fly. If someone stakes a claim that reindeer can fly, they need to produce one that can..... Period. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
|
0
points
1
point
7
points
I believe in disproportionately placed phenomena caused by the spontaneous molecular disturbances of alien space crafts and technologies. Anything "supernatural" are just things that have yet to be explained my science. We are still in the dark ages apparently, since so many people still believe in such a thing as "God". Side: no,I don't beleive in god
6
points
5
points
I have no reason to believe in any gods. Mono theism doesn't make much sense, one god making lots of people but only giving one group the truth of who the real god is while the others worship false gods, rather than many people made different gods. It is just more reasonable that god/gods are man made rather than the other way around. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1. There was never a point of time where anything was created or destroyed. It merely changes form. Example: Energy 2. To understand God, you first have to understand yourself. Are you speaking as your personality or soul. These two differs completely. 99% or the time your ego, id and super ego governs your entire system of thinking. For example: The desire for truth, the desire to return to an original source (father figure, family), a sense of greater purpose, the desire to surrender you will to a higher power(how lost do you feel anyway?) and of course fear of death. These are desires that stem from your living conditions. It becomes irrelevant after death. See? External reality (the way things are) and internal reality (the way things you believe to be) becomes cloudy. You CREATE your reality. 3. Two of the above statements may be hard to explain to any human 2000 to 1500 years ago. (Civilisations before has a fairly respectable understanding of the term 'spirituality') Therefore, any sort of 'revelation' given by the smartest of angels fall into simplistic translations and quite often self serving and delusional. 4. You can start believing the planet is created by a god all you want but know that the development of life on earth as we know now it has been a rare occurrence indeed. The chances are one in a gazillion. There are specific conditions to be met and it took billions of years for us to get here not 7 days. The creation of life is a NATURAL phenomena. A RARE one. Conclusion: 'Wisdom is not the absence of ignorance but the understanding of it' -Me. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
'Wisdom is not the absence of ignorance but the understanding of it' Wouldn't it be more along the lines of: ignorance is the absence of wisdom? Usually, things that are perceived negatively are the absence of something. Darkness is the absence of light, hate is the absence of love, cold is the absence of heat, and so on. But even though we consider these things to be lacking in what we often think of as positive, it is clear that both need to exist in order for us to perceive them. Side: yes, I believe in god
The nature of ignorance is that..you don't know you are wrong, therefore you need to find out. The Buddha was not a perfect human being, albeit his philosophy which still stands out today. He once starved himself to the brink of death believing that the act would help him gain some sort of spiritual transcendence. He was wrong. Therefore he taught the 'middle-way' or the path of moderation. Took him decades to realize this. Side: yes, I believe in god
I don't believe that there is a such thing as a perfect human being. Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Confucius, and so on... None of them were perfect. But they had teachings that could possibly lead to something close to perfection. Of course, everything they taught has been corrupted by others. I think there is a wisdom which we can all find, we just need to uncover the veil of ignorance. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
Care to define the meaning of perfect? The fact that you cling on to the idea of what is perfect or not goes against the teachings of Buddhism. Since the first step of becoming an 'enlightened' person is to see reality as it is, free from bias, conceptualization and ideas. If by that definition he is perfect, then so is everyone else. We just don't know it. Side: yes, I believe in god
1
point
1
point
Glad you brought that up. Which means these 'messages' that prophets receive are simplified or dumb downed to a point where the simpletons of the past could understand. The word billion was non-existent since at that point it was an inconceivably huge number. This also mean that your obnoxious religion was compatible with their barbaric and ignorant nature. One that we could all do away now. Also, according to genesis your god created the earth first and then the light. This could not happen since the sun is millions of years older than earth. Plus isn't it petty to create humans so that he can be worshiped by them. What sort of narcissistic dumbass would do such a thing. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Firstly, do you know how offensive that could be taken? Secondly, the 'earth' you refer to could be any number of stellar chunks of rock, that might have been floating around space way before the sun, but might have become part of the earth. The Bible just doesn't go into those sort of specifics! Side: yes, I believe in god
4
points
3
points
3
points
I don't believe in a god in the conventional sense of the word, which is apparently a monopoly of monotheism. I don't believe in such a god because that god would have to actively intervene in our affairs according to what he stated, but he doesn't. I do believe that there are logical complications caused by a cause-and-effect principle applied to the Big Bang (Apart from other principles which both prove and disprove the existence of a god outside space and time) Now with the lack of any evidence, I cannot make any conclusive claims of this and maintain the position that if a causal factor exists outside of our Universe which is compatible with the Deistic god (and such a scenario is scientifically invalid but logically true) then Deism is true. But considering the scientific evidence, I am inclined towards believing that the Universe had no conceivable cause which we can test and comprehend, giving no premise for a deistic/theistic argument. Thus as nothing, absolutely nothing has existed before the Universe, there was no cause. This is where this complexity lies, on one hand logic defies Science and asserts the cause-and-effect principle, on the other, the Scientific evidence is overwhelming and points towards the regular spontaneously-created (no creationist propaganda intended) Universe which is widely accepted by the scientific community. I hope that more evidence is available later on so that there is more certainty about the nature of this matter. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
2
points
1
point
1
point
-1
points
Man has been asking himself if god is real. Well it's not. If god is real why does god have to be a guy. And plus evolution is true. In 2001 Toumai or Sahelanthropus was discovered, the missing link was discovered. He was the evidence that evolution was true. The bible just tell you lies. The bible tell many historical errors. The great flood never happened, Adam and Eve was inaccurate, and Jesus's name wasn't even jesus. Side: no,I don't beleive in god
1
point
Man has been asking himself if god is real. Well it's not. If god is real why does god have to be a guy. And plus evolution is true. In 2001 Toumai or Sahelanthropus was discovered, the missing link was discovered. He was the evidence that evolution was true. The bible just tell you lies. The bible tell many historical errors. The great flood never happened, Adam and Eve was inaccurate, and Jesus's name wasn't even jesus. You were not there Side: yes, I believe in god
4
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
