Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trD1cEPuJ2E]Annette Funicello - Blame It On The Bossa Nova - YouTube[/ame]

 

[newpolitics]

Well....Hells Bells !!!!

Let's just release all the good folks in the mental institutions !! Now that we cleared up that nonsense about delusion being nonsense and everything..

70,000 years of behavior in a species is certainly not "delusional" ...but YOU are!

Why is it not delusional? And why are you not drawing distinctions between the types of spiritual beliefs? Many cultures simply deified objects they saw, such as the sun, moon, and stars, and added stories so they could interact with eachother to make sense of natural phenomena, such as the seasons, night/day, lighting, earthquakes. All this means is, humans didnt have s scientific explanation for things that were crucial to their survival, so they invented stories so they felt like they could interact with and control it things such as the rain (to grow crops), the sun , the climate. This response is quite rational. From here, Religion itself has evolved from these deified objects to the monotheistic disembodied minds we see with the Judeo-Christian religions. It is that simple. No spiritual realm is needed to explain the existence of spiritual belief. Therefore, Occam's Razor cuts it away.

 

[Boss]

Well....Hells Bells !!!!

Let's just release all the good folks in the mental institutions !! Now that we cleared up that nonsense about delusion being nonsense and everything..

70,000 years of behavior in a species is certainly not "delusional" ...but YOU are!

Why is it not delusional? And why are you not drawing distinctions between the types of spiritual beliefs? Many cultures simply deified objects they saw, such as the sun, moon, and stars, and added stories so they could interact with eachother to make sense of natural phenomena, such as the seasons, night/day, lighting, earthquakes. All this means is, humans didnt have s scientific explanation for things that were crucial to their survival, so they invented stories so they felt like they could interact with and control it things such as the rain (to grow crops), the sun , the climate. This response is quite rational. From here, Religion itself has evolved from these deified objects to the monotheistic disembodied minds we see with the Judeo-Christian religions. It is that simple. No spiritual realm is needed to explain the existence of spiritual belief. Therefore, Occam's Razor cuts it away.

Ask Darwin why it's not "delusion" for a species to have a behavioral trait for 70,000 years. If we did not comprehend why salmon swim upstream, but we observed this phenomenon happening over and over with them, we would not conclude they were "delusional." Are you SURE you understand what science is? You'd think morons would know more about their own religion.

The "excuse" you offer for spirituality, simply fails the logic test as well. If what you claim were true, we could expect to see a precipitous drop in religious and spiritual believe, with the advent of science, which came later. As science started answering these questions of the unknown, more and more people would have simply abandoned religious belief the same as they did with superstition. But that's not what the evidence shows. To the contrary, religious and spiritual belief is as strong as ever, it has not changed in humans. There have been periods of decline in religiousness, followed by periods of revival, but spiritual belief in some form, has always been the 'norm' in humans. And it always will be.

This is where Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for human spirituality, is that a spiritual nature exists. These billions and billions of people, are not having a delusion, they are literally making a connection with a spiritual force outside your realm of comprehension, and whether you believe or not, they fully believe. This is indisputable.

 

[Boss]

Derideo: I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, which I share in the blame for.

Newpolitcs: No point in blaming yourself for his obstinance. No amount of sound logic or hard facts are ever going to change the mind of a "true Believer". Sometimes it is better to just move on to opponents who are more worthy of your time and attention.

You've not presented any sound logic to refute the OP. Most of what you've presented is illogical blather, while demanding the illogical as "proof" you know is impossible. Then you want to dance around with distortion, wax philosophical, and ignore the evidence presented. After that, you conclude with an arrogant flurry of insult and denigration, and proclaim yourself victorious in battle over "the believers." You're with newpolitics... this is TEAM thing with you... your team vs. the believers. Can't be objective and have an objective conversation with one of THOSE people, have to reject everything said on face, because this is for THE TEAM! **RAH RAH - SIS BOOM BAH!**

 

[newpolitics]

70,000 years of behavior in a species is certainly not "delusional" ...but YOU are!

Why is it not delusional? And why are you not drawing distinctions between the types of spiritual beliefs? Many cultures simply deified objects they saw, such as the sun, moon, and stars, and added stories so they could interact with eachother to make sense of natural phenomena, such as the seasons, night/day, lighting, earthquakes. All this means is, humans didnt have s scientific explanation for things that were crucial to their survival, so they invented stories so they felt like they could interact with and control it things such as the rain (to grow crops), the sun , the climate. This response is quite rational. From here, Religion itself has evolved from these deified objects to the monotheistic disembodied minds we see with the Judeo-Christian religions. It is that simple. No spiritual realm is needed to explain the existence of spiritual belief. Therefore, Occam's Razor cuts it away.

Ask Darwin why it's not "delusion" for a species to have a behavioral trait for 70,000 years. If we did not comprehend why salmon swim upstream, but we observed this phenomenon happening over and over with them, we would not conclude they were "delusional." Are you SURE you understand what science is? You'd think morons would know more about their own religion.

The "excuse" you offer for spirituality, simply fails the logic test as well. If what you claim were true, we could expect to see a precipitous drop in religious and spiritual believe, with the advent of science, which came later. As science started answering these questions of the unknown, more and more people would have simply abandoned religious belief the same as they did with superstition. But that's not what the evidence shows. To the contrary, religious and spiritual belief is as strong as ever, it has not changed in humans. There have been periods of decline in religiousness, followed by periods of revival, but spiritual belief in some form, has always been the 'norm' in humans. And it always will be.

This is where Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for human spirituality, is that a spiritual nature exists. These billions and billions of people, are not having a delusion, they are literally making a connection with a spiritual force outside your realm of comprehension, and whether you believe or not, they fully believe. This is indisputable.

Evolutionary theory would explain why certain behavioral traits increase fitness, not whether beliefs that lead to those behaviors are actually true. You are simply assuming that those beliefs are true because they lead to increased fitness, and invoking evolutionary theory, when it would make no such claim. Humans are biologically compelled to reproduce, not to find truth. This is why we have built-in human cognitive biases. The mere existence of cognitive human biases are a defeater for your claims, which rest on subjectivity- a realm where biases operate. Humans belief or have a tendency to believe false things because it increases fitness, such as males thinking they are more attractive than they really are, which causes them to try more with girls leading to greater reproductive success. In fact, science is designed to overcome these biases through the peer review, and in doing so, reach a greater level if objectivity. What you are doing is trying to claim that human judgement is infallible. I'm wondering how you came to this determination, given how obviously false this is.

religious beliefs exist only in the absence of a better explanation, which we are getting now with science. Atheism is on the rise in America, falsifying your implicit claim that it isn't..

 

[Boss]

Why is it not delusional? And why are you not drawing distinctions between the types of spiritual beliefs? Many cultures simply deified objects they saw, such as the sun, moon, and stars, and added stories so they could interact with eachother to make sense of natural phenomena, such as the seasons, night/day, lighting, earthquakes. All this means is, humans didnt have s scientific explanation for things that were crucial to their survival, so they invented stories so they felt like they could interact with and control it things such as the rain (to grow crops), the sun , the climate. This response is quite rational. From here, Religion itself has evolved from these deified objects to the monotheistic disembodied minds we see with the Judeo-Christian religions. It is that simple. No spiritual realm is needed to explain the existence of spiritual belief. Therefore, Occam's Razor cuts it away.

Ask Darwin why it's not "delusion" for a species to have a behavioral trait for 70,000 years. If we did not comprehend why salmon swim upstream, but we observed this phenomenon happening over and over with them, we would not conclude they were "delusional." Are you SURE you understand what science is? You'd think morons would know more about their own religion.

The "excuse" you offer for spirituality, simply fails the logic test as well. If what you claim were true, we could expect to see a precipitous drop in religious and spiritual believe, with the advent of science, which came later. As science started answering these questions of the unknown, more and more people would have simply abandoned religious belief the same as they did with superstition. But that's not what the evidence shows. To the contrary, religious and spiritual belief is as strong as ever, it has not changed in humans. There have been periods of decline in religiousness, followed by periods of revival, but spiritual belief in some form, has always been the 'norm' in humans. And it always will be.

This is where Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for human spirituality, is that a spiritual nature exists. These billions and billions of people, are not having a delusion, they are literally making a connection with a spiritual force outside your realm of comprehension, and whether you believe or not, they fully believe. This is indisputable.

Evolutionary theory would explain why certain behavioral traits increase fitness, not whether beliefs that lead to those behaviors are actually true. You are simply assuming that those beliefs are true because they lead to increased fitness, and invoking evolutionary theory, when it would make no such claim. Humans are biologically compelled to reproduce, not to find truth. This is why we have built-in human cognitive biases. The mere existence of cognitive human biases are a defeater for your claims, which rest on subjectivity- a realm where biases operate. Humans belief or have a tendency to believe false things because it increases fitness, such as males thinking they are more attractive than they really are, which causes them to try more with girls leading to greater reproductive success. In fact, science is designed to overcome these biases through the peer review, and in doing so, reach a greater level if objectivity. What you are doing is trying to claim that human judgement is infallible. I'm wondering how you came to this determination, given how obviously false this is.

religious beliefs exist only in the absence of a better explanation, which we are getting now with science. Atheism is on the rise in America, falsifying your implicit claim that it isn't..

First of all, it is difficult to look at the millions and millions of humans who have been persecuted and killed due to their spiritual beliefs, and believe this was for the sake of fitness. In fact, we'd have to suspend reality to believe such a thing. You also fail to cite one single example of a species exhibiting any behavior without purpose or reason. Even the simplest dumbest animals, don't do things that are totally irrational and unnecessary, they have a fundamental reason for behavior. Of course, you claim this irrational behavior in humans is to explain the unknown, but that is false too.

Science is designed to study the physical universe, it doesn't conclude anything, especially with regard to the spiritual universe, since physical science doesn't apply. Most all of the great unknown things to ancient man, have been explained with physical science. Therefore, if this were the reason for human spiritual beliefs, we would see a DRAMATIC decrease in said beliefs, just over the past 100 years! WE DON'T! You can crow about the rise of Atheism, but atheists make up a relatively small number of the population... and here's the kicker, not all atheists reject the possibility of spiritual nature or a spiritual power higher than self. As I said earlier, many people consider me to be an Atheist, and here I am, presenting definitive proof that god exists. The statistic you need is not Atheists, but Nihilists, people who "believe in nussing, Lebowski, nussing!" These people make up about 5% of humans, and this number is largely unchanged over thousands of years.... even with science explaining away the unknown. So that theory is shot to hell.

I have not argued that human judgment is infallible, I don't know where you derived this, but I totally reject that argument. IF that were true, man-made religion would also be infallible, and it certainly isn't.

 

[newpolitics]

Ask Darwin why it's not "delusion" for a species to have a behavioral trait for 70,000 years. If we did not comprehend why salmon swim upstream, but we observed this phenomenon happening over and over with them, we would not conclude they were "delusional." Are you SURE you understand what science is? You'd think morons would know more about their own religion.

The "excuse" you offer for spirituality, simply fails the logic test as well. If what you claim were true, we could expect to see a precipitous drop in religious and spiritual believe, with the advent of science, which came later. As science started answering these questions of the unknown, more and more people would have simply abandoned religious belief the same as they did with superstition. But that's not what the evidence shows. To the contrary, religious and spiritual belief is as strong as ever, it has not changed in humans. There have been periods of decline in religiousness, followed by periods of revival, but spiritual belief in some form, has always been the 'norm' in humans. And it always will be.

This is where Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for human spirituality, is that a spiritual nature exists. These billions and billions of people, are not having a delusion, they are literally making a connection with a spiritual force outside your realm of comprehension, and whether you believe or not, they fully believe. This is indisputable.

Evolutionary theory would explain why certain behavioral traits increase fitness, not whether beliefs that lead to those behaviors are actually true. You are simply assuming that those beliefs are true because they lead to increased fitness, and invoking evolutionary theory, when it would make no such claim. Humans are biologically compelled to reproduce, not to find truth. This is why we have built-in human cognitive biases. The mere existence of cognitive human biases are a defeater for your claims, which rest on subjectivity- a realm where biases operate. Humans belief or have a tendency to believe false things because it increases fitness, such as males thinking they are more attractive than they really are, which causes them to try more with girls leading to greater reproductive success. In fact, science is designed to overcome these biases through the peer review, and in doing so, reach a greater level if objectivity. What you are doing is trying to claim that human judgement is infallible. I'm wondering how you came to this determination, given how obviously false this is.

religious beliefs exist only in the absence of a better explanation, which we are getting now with science. Atheism is on the rise in America, falsifying your implicit claim that it isn't..

First of all, it is difficult to look at the millions and millions of humans who have been persecuted and killed due to their spiritual beliefs, and believe this was for the sake of fitness. In fact, we'd have to suspend reality to believe such a thing. You also fail to cite one single example of a species exhibiting any behavior without purpose or reason. Even the simplest dumbest animals, don't do things that are totally irrational and unnecessary, they have a fundamental reason for behavior. Of course, you claim this irrational behavior in humans is to explain the unknown, but that is false too.

Science is designed to study the physical universe, it doesn't conclude anything, especially with regard to the spiritual universe, since physical science doesn't apply. Most all of the great unknown things to ancient man, have been explained with physical science. Therefore, if this were the reason for human spiritual beliefs, we would see a DRAMATIC decrease in said beliefs, just over the past 100 years! WE DON'T! You can crow about the rise of Atheism, but atheists make up a relatively small number of the population... and here's the kicker, not all atheists reject the possibility of spiritual nature or a spiritual power higher than self. As I said earlier, many people consider me to be an Atheist, and here I am, presenting definitive proof that god exists. The statistic you need is not Atheists, but Nihilists, people who "believe in nussing, Lebowski, nussing!" These people make up about 5% of humans, and this number is largely unchanged over thousands of years.... even with science explaining away the unknown. So that theory is shot to hell.

I have not argued that human judgment is infallible, I don't know where you derived this, but I totally reject that argument. IF that were true, man-made religion would also be infallible, and it certainly isn't.

You are a walking contradiction: a self-described atheist making "definitive proofs for god." No wonder you contradict yourself constantly: it is part of your nature.

 

[newpolitics]

I am quite finished correcting you on your logical fallacies and misconceptions about science, philosophy, and logic, Boss. It takes too much time and energy. While I enjoy the challenge of getting past your rhetoric to the holes in your logic, the novelty has worn off. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your going to need a lot of luck convincing anybody else.

 

[S.J.]

I am quite finished correcting you on your logical fallacies and misconceptions about science, philosophy, and logic, Boss. It takes too much time and energy. While I enjoy the challenge of getting past your rhetoric to the holes in your logic, the novelty has worn off. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your going to need a lot of luck convincing anybody else.

Congratulations again, Boss. You win round two. NP must be a glutton for punishment.

 

[newpolitics]

I am quite finished correcting you on your logical fallacies and misconceptions about science, philosophy, and logic, Boss. It takes too much time and energy. While I enjoy the challenge of getting past your rhetoric to the holes in your logic, the novelty has worn off. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your going to need a lot of luck convincing anybody else.

Congratulations again, Boss. You win round two. NP must be a glutton for punishment.

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

 

[edthecynic]

The scientific evidence that carries the most weight is Physical evidence. I asked earlier what kind of evidence would it be that people speak in tongues a language they never had any training in but through recordings these languages were confirmed ? They said they open there mouth and it was like someone else was in control of what was being said.

Mind citing references or scientific linguistics studies that these spoken languages are actually languages? I have heard of ex-Christians who can speak in tongues at will, simply because they used to. What does this mean?

Could not find the article I read yet but it was from a couple of years ago.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rWrTexcHQ]Speaking in tongues: A Scientific study.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?_r=0

First of all, you claimed these people spoke REAL languages, and you named 2 then added a 3rd. The people in the video spoke no KNOWN language and admitted such claiming God would understand them.

But more importantly, as a physicist, it was obvious to me that the claimed "scientific" study was not the least bit scientific. It lacked a control!!! There should have been a brain scan of an Atheist talking gibberish! I'm guessing the scan would be identical to the fake tongue talkers.

 

[S.J.]

I am quite finished correcting you on your logical fallacies and misconceptions about science, philosophy, and logic, Boss. It takes too much time and energy. While I enjoy the challenge of getting past your rhetoric to the holes in your logic, the novelty has worn off. You are entitled to your beliefs, but your going to need a lot of luck convincing anybody else.

Congratulations again, Boss. You win round two. NP must be a glutton for punishment.

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

Go back and read the thread and you'll see that I participated in it early on. You've thrown in the towel twice now in the same thread, just like you threw in the towel when you couldn't make your case for evolution. You finally resorted to saying something like you would "kick my ass". This is what you do when you can't win, like a kid who thinks he knows everything and loses his temper when an adult sets him straight.

 

[edthecynic]

You are being silly. Spirituality is the relationship between humans and the spiritual universe, and without humans, there is no relationship required or needed. So you are presenting a totally silly and irrational point, over and over again, and including some philosophical pontification about "essence begets existence!"

Spirituality DOES require humans, that's what it is, by definition. What the spirituality connects to, can certainly exist before humans, and you haven't proven otherwise. The fact that humans weren't here to recognize and acknowledge god, doesn't mean god doesn't exist... sorry!

I pontificated nothing. I gave a specific and unassailable example.

Anyone today who listens and is moved by the music of Bach has experienced the spirit of Bach alive in his music. Before Bach existed no one was ever moved by the spirit of Bach, contrary to your claim that humans could connect to the spirituality of Bach before he existed to compose his music.
Existence begets essence.

Now it is time to prove your doublespeak.

Bach was a physical person who created something. He physically existed, his creation was of the physical world. It did not exist until he created it. This simply does not prove that humans existed before spiritual existence. Spiritual worship didn't exist, because there was no need or purpose without humans. Spirituality didn't exist, because that's a human attribute, but you have not proven a spiritual universe didn't exist. What you are presenting is a "chicken/egg" argument, or "if a tree fell in a forest..." Well, the egg dates back to the dinosaurs, so the egg came first, and sound waves exist regardless of whether a human ear is there to hear them. These are anecdotal, and in an argument such as this, very much 'doublespeak' and circular reasoning.

Did Ying exist before Yang? Did Light exist before Dark? Did logic exist before abstract? What if everything we are experiencing is a figment of our imaginations, and there is no reality or material world? These are great questions to smoke a joint and ponder, but they are largely philosophical nonsense questions that don't matter.

You've presented no evidence that the spiritual realm didn't exist before humans.

Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.

I proved what I set out to prove, that existence begets essence. It is not my obligation to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to prove your claim that spirituality precedes existence, something you have yet to do. You have only pontificated that it is assumed. An assumption is not a proof. You then claim that I do not accept spiritual evidence even though I have repeatedly given you evidence of the spiritual created after man's existence, which you reject as spiritual evidence. Obviously you don't even pay attention to what YOU say, let alone what anyone else says.

 

[newpolitics]

Congratulations again, Boss. You win round two. NP must be a glutton for punishment.

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

Go back and read the thread and you'll see that I participated in it early on. You've thrown in the towel twice now in the same thread, just like you threw in the towel when you couldn't make your case for evolution. You finally resorted to saying something like you would "kick my ass". This is what you do when you can't win, like a kid who thinks he knows everything and loses his temper when an adult sets him straight.

You have a serious talent for getting under my skin. Ill give you that.

 

[S.J.]

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

Go back and read the thread and you'll see that I participated in it early on. You've thrown in the towel twice now in the same thread, just like you threw in the towel when you couldn't make your case for evolution. You finally resorted to saying something like you would "kick my ass". This is what you do when you can't win, like a kid who thinks he knows everything and loses his temper when an adult sets him straight.

You have a serious talent for getting under my skin. Ill give you that.

Yeah, seems like everybody you can't bully into submission gets under your skin.

 

[newpolitics]

Go back and read the thread and you'll see that I participated in it early on. You've thrown in the towel twice now in the same thread, just like you threw in the towel when you couldn't make your case for evolution. You finally resorted to saying something like you would "kick my ass". This is what you do when you can't win, like a kid who thinks he knows everything and loses his temper when an adult sets him straight.

You have a serious talent for getting under my skin. Ill give you that.

Yeah, seems like everybody you can't bully into submission gets under your skin.

That's funny. I feel the same about you.

 

[Boss]

Wrong again, his creation transcends the physical. Long after Bach physically died he continues to move people spiritually, not physically, with his spirit still alive in his music.

I proved what I set out to prove, that existence begets essence. It is not my obligation to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to prove your claim that spirituality precedes existence, something you have yet to do. You have only pontificated that it is assumed. An assumption is not a proof. You then claim that I do not accept spiritual evidence even though I have repeatedly given you evidence of the spiritual created after man's existence, which you reject as spiritual evidence. Obviously you don't even pay attention to what YOU say, let alone what anyone else says.

Did you just actually make an argument that spiritual nature exists? That's a very important first step in understanding the definitive spiritual evidence. What you proved, is that some humans are capable of moving other humans spiritually. I don't have a bit of trouble with that argument, I think it is perfectly valid. I also have no problem with "existence begets essence" but the spiritual realm exists in a non-physical state. You see... "to exist" means two different things when talking about "physical" and "spiritual" so we have to make sure we are clear, a spiritual existence does not have physical characteristics or properties. Like when you are "moved" by Bach, there are no "physical" properties for this.

Since we are getting all philosophical and technical, I would go so far as to say, a spiritual nature most likely existed BEFORE a physical universe. I say "most likely" because we can't be for certain, it depends upon whether the Big Bang actually happened. If that is the case, something had to cause it. No physical universe existed, so nothing in the physical universe could have caused it.

 

[Boss]

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been? Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers."

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.

 

[newpolitics]

Are you a "thread-sniper"? If not, that should be what your behavior is described as. You don't participate in the debate, at all, you simply dole out your evaluations when you think your friends win after all the action has already taken place. In this context, you'd be as delusional as boss for thinking he had in any way won this. Looks like you don't have the balls to enter the debate yourself, so you stand behind somebody else, and every once in a while, peer over their shoulder to shout things at the opponent, and then recede. It's totally pathetic, but quite entertaining.

I won this when I posted the thread, dummy, where have you been? Oh yeah, that's right, you've been here distracting and diverting, being an obtuse little twit, and misquoting everything you read. As I said way back, your strategy was to keep obfuscating, distracting, diverting, and being a twit, until your calvary arrived, and we see that they have. So now, you have people to slap you on the back and tell you how well you handled me, and you can chortle back and forth like pre-teen school girls, about us "delusional believers."

Now that you have reinforcements, you feel confident enough to strut around claiming you've refuted my points and defeated my arguments, and we're just having the after-party. I've about figured out how this works... you see, nobody is going to read through 10 or 20 pages of your distractions and diversions, they read the OP, and then see where you're doing victory laps, and mayyyyybe... you are hoping, they believe that you have defeated my argument! Because, substance wise, you have presented very little.

You are VERY delusional in almost every respect. All I know is, I am not going to play your games.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mind citing references or scientific linguistics studies that these spoken languages are actually languages? I have heard of ex-Christians who can speak in tongues at will, simply because they used to. What does this mean?

Could not find the article I read yet but it was from a couple of years ago.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rWrTexcHQ]Speaking in tongues: A Scientific study.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html?_r=0

First of all, you claimed these people spoke REAL languages, and you named 2 then added a 3rd. The people in the video spoke no KNOWN language and admitted such claiming God would understand them.

But more importantly, as a physicist, it was obvious to me that the claimed "scientific" study was not the least bit scientific. It lacked a control!!! There should have been a brain scan of an Atheist talking gibberish! I'm guessing the scan would be identical to the fake tongue talkers.

You're ignoring the fact the test was not just done on one person but several. I would find that interesting if the test was done on an atheist but it does not make their case any weaker because they didn't test an Atheist.

I have not been able to locate the study I read but in this case it may be no known language however the article I read about the study done they did confirm three known languages. Did you notice in the video where it showed that the brain revealed different activity when they spoke their known language from when they were speaking in tongues and someone else was supposedly speaking for them.

What kind of explanation can be given for the different brain activity ?