Why do the God-haters persist?

[Steven_R]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again the OP exposes his true intent to flame those who don't share his beliefs.

LOL.. no flame just fact. Pointing out how someone is being dishonest has nothing to do with sharing my beliefs or flaming. But here you are again violating the piss out of forum rules, trying to get the thread moved to the flame zone because you don't like the OP.

Someone call the waaahmbulance!

Ironic!

 

[Boss]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

 

[Steven_R]

You're over complicating this. It's two separate questions.

1) Is(are) there a God(s)?
Dunno. There's no data either way supporting the supernatural, which by definition is outside of whatever plane of existence we're on.

2) Is the God of the Bible (and Jesus and Moses) real?
No. There is no corroborating evidence (geological, archaeological, historical, physical) that the Jehovah and/or Jesus stories are true.

 

[GISMYS]

IF YOU ARE REALLY SEEKING TRUTH,READ AND BELIEVE GOD'S WORD, GOD is reveiled through His Word to those that seek him.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

Your history lesson is hilarious. You pretend that a spiritual connection is a historical fact, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. It is your unsupported hypothesis which I have previously challenged with the idea that what is historically consistent is man's awareness of his mortality and the unknown and how his fear of these has consistently developed the rationalization of faith in a fiction he adopts to fill in the blanks. Throughout history, as these fictions are eviscerated by greater and greater knowledge, man adapts these fictions to react to the realization that they have been operating under rationalizations that no longer can be supported. This has been repeated through all of man's existence.
You of course, classically had no idea what a rationalization was or how prevalent they are in the consciousness and sub-consciousness of man, how people can't get through a day without them, and how utterly dependent mankind is on them.
These are freshman year psychological concepts that you have, seemingly, no exposure to whatsoever.
As for archeology, the fossil record is static. Evolution is a process. The argument you share is ridiculous on its face.

 

[thebrucebeat]

IF YOU ARE REALLY SEEKING TRUTH,READ AND BELIEVE GOD'S WORD, GOD is reveiled through His Word to those that seek him.

"Reveiled"(sic)?
Did you mean revealed or reviled?

 

[Boss]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

Your history lesson is hilarious. You pretend that a spiritual connection is a historical fact, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. It is your unsupported hypothesis which I have previously challenged with the idea that what is historically consistent is man's awareness of his mortality and the unknown and how his fear of these has consistently developed the rationalization of faith in a fiction he adopts to fill in the blanks. Throughout history, as these fictions are eviscerated by greater and greater knowledge, man adapts these fictions to react to the realization that they have been operating under rationalizations that no longer can be supported. This has been repeated through all of man's existence.
You of course, classically had no idea what a rationalization was or how prevalent they are in the consciousness and sub-consciousness of man, how people can't get through a day without them, and how utterly dependent mankind is on them.
These are freshman year psychological concepts that you have, seemingly, no exposure to whatsoever.
As for archeology, the fossil record is static. Evolution is a process. The argument you share is ridiculous on its face.

Well I do know what rationalizations are, you just wanted to apply a single definition to the word. But here you indicate rationalizations can "no longer be supported" which implies some rationalizations can be supported. So you've now destroyed your very own argument regarding rationalizations, and I didn't have to say a word. It is YOU who drew some rigid 7th-grade comprehension of "rationalization" up and stuck with that for days. Most high school psych students learn that rationalization can be good and bad, it can be legitimate and illegitimate, and it's basically the processing and evaluation of rational thought. Other species do it. You never posted a single refrence definition that indicated this was exclusive to humans because it fucking isn't. Moron!

Spirituality is a historical fact. From the very oldest remains of human civilization we've unearthed, there are signs of spiritual rituals and ceremonies. It's not a hypothesis, it's a proven goddamn fact. What ISN'T a proven fact is this idiocy about man having to create imaginary beings to console this unexplained fear of their own mortality, which no other creature seems to have the slightest problem with in nature.

 

[GISMYS]

BOTTOMLINE= GOD HATERS ARE SIN LOVERS!!! They want to think there is no GOD HOPING THAT they can live in their pet sins and not face GOD'S JUDGMENTS!!!! DREAM ON!!

 

[Boss]

You're over complicating this. It's two separate questions.

1) Is(are) there a God(s)?
Dunno. There's no data either way supporting the supernatural, which by definition is outside of whatever plane of existence we're on.

2) Is the God of the Bible (and Jesus and Moses) real?
No. There is no corroborating evidence (geological, archaeological, historical, physical) that the Jehovah and/or Jesus stories are true.

Well, sorry but you are simply wrong. There is tons of evidence to show the people mentioned in the Bible did exist and weren't made up. If what you stated were true, it would be the biggest and most widespread conspiracy to ever have been theorized, encompassing thousands of people over several hundred years, from vastly different regions, all conspiring to promote a total fabrication. Now there are people who don't believe we landed on the moon, but this is that times a million.

I'm not here to defend the Christian incarnation of God. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't know if every story in the Bible is true or literally happened. I believe a good deal of the stories are metaphoric and intended to illustrate a message. That said, I can't prove that every single word of the Bible isn't true and accurate as written. It's possible.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

Your history lesson is hilarious. You pretend that a spiritual connection is a historical fact, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. It is your unsupported hypothesis which I have previously challenged with the idea that what is historically consistent is man's awareness of his mortality and the unknown and how his fear of these has consistently developed the rationalization of faith in a fiction he adopts to fill in the blanks. Throughout history, as these fictions are eviscerated by greater and greater knowledge, man adapts these fictions to react to the realization that they have been operating under rationalizations that no longer can be supported. This has been repeated through all of man's existence.
You of course, classically had no idea what a rationalization was or how prevalent they are in the consciousness and sub-consciousness of man, how people can't get through a day without them, and how utterly dependent mankind is on them.
These are freshman year psychological concepts that you have, seemingly, no exposure to whatsoever.
As for archeology, the fossil record is static. Evolution is a process. The argument you share is ridiculous on its face.

Well I do know what rationalizations are, you just wanted to apply a single definition to the word. But here you indicate rationalizations can "no longer be supported" which implies some rationalizations can be supported. So you've now destroyed your very own argument regarding rationalizations, and I didn't have to say a word. It is YOU who drew some rigid 7th-grade comprehension of "rationalization" up and stuck with that for days. Most high school psych students learn that rationalization can be good and bad, it can be legitimate and illegitimate, and it's basically the processing and evaluation of rational thought. Other species do it. You never posted a single refrence definition that indicated this was exclusive to humans because it fucking isn't. Moron!

Spirituality is a historical fact. From the very oldest remains of human civilization we've unearthed, there are signs of spiritual rituals and ceremonies. It's not a hypothesis, it's a proven goddamn fact. What ISN'T a proven fact is this idiocy about man having to create imaginary beings to console this unexplained fear of their own mortality, which no other creature seems to have the slightest problem with in nature.

Do you really want me to humiliate you again with your total lack of comprehension about rationalization?
Shall I post the dozen definitions that all identify you as a fraud? AGAIN?
Will you make up the term "false rationalization" AGAIN so I can show there is no reference to the phrase anywhere?
When rationalizations are used to cover guilt they are often exposed and no longer supported. If you understood the term, you would know that the whole exercise depends on building a supporting mythology. It is what the term is all about.
How stupid do you really want to reveal yourself as being? You are pushing the envelope of what is possible.
Proof of ceremonies is not proof of what they celebrate.

 

[MrMax]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

 

[Newby]

What about "there might be a God or Gods or something, I just don't know because there is no data either way, but based on the scientific, historical and archaeological evidence it's safe to say Jehovah and Jesus as just myths"?

Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

Wow, what a huge presumption to make, as well as requiring complete faith.

 

[MrMax]

Well you're saying two different things. First you say there is "no evidence either way" then you somehow glean all of this supposed evidence from science, history and archeology. That's why I keep pointing out you're lying. Both statements cannot be true. If you believe "no evidence either way" then you can't also believe there is evidence either way. You can't take the position that you're not certain, but yet you're sure it's a myth. You either believe one or the other, but you lie because you believe that makes you appear more objective.

Now you can certainly get angry at me for pointing out your lies, that's a normal response. But it isn't going to turn your lies into truth. You can do like Dorito Tea and pull out every trick in the book to get the thread booted to the flame zone where you can claim a "moral" victory, it's still not going to change your lies to truth.

As for your so-called "evidence" let's go over that. Your physical sciences are not designed to properly evaluate spiritual nature, by default. So the fact that physical science shows no evidence of spiritual nature is not unexpected or illogical. IF science ever does show physical evidence of something spiritual it instantly becomes something physical, does it not? Am I wrong about that? Is there something you're not comprehending with that? Therefore, we can't accept this fact as anything more than confirmation that physical is not spiritual. But I think we all knew this already.

Next we have history. Well, historically, humans have always been spiritually connected to something greater than self. This has taken many various forms, but the constant of human spirituality is not changed. We've observed brutal times in history where jealous kings and rulers tried their best to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man and failed. It remains our most defining attribute as a species. History certainly shows that humans need spiritual connection and it simply will not be denied.

Finally, archeology. We know for a fact that roughly 95% of the life which has existed in the past, no longer exists. So how does this translate to evidence that life is this burgeoning and evolving thing that spawns all sorts of new things? The evidence shows life is suffering entropy, not recreating more life. The fossil record shows no signs of life emerging from single-cell organisms into multicellular organisms, and then into all other genera. And to top that off, nothing in science refutes biogenesis, the fact that life can only come from life.

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

Wow, what a huge presumption to make, as well as requiring complete faith.

Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist.

why?....science has never taken that position....especially in the realm of pre-Big Bang........

 

[orogenicman]

If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist.

why?....science has never taken that position....especially in the realm of pre-Big Bang........

He wasn't talking about pre-bang bang or pre-anything else. Stop trying to derail the conversation, bubba.

 

[BreezeWood]

So there are strikes one, two and three! The "evidence" does not refute God or creation by God. It doesn't indicate it is a myth. Now, if this is a lie you want to convince yourself of, that's fine, but just know that other people are going to pinpoint your lies and expose them.

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

... or creation


what is creation ? -

is there in your opinion a difference between a planet and physiology or are they the same ?

is there a Spirit in physiology or is physiology necessary for a Spirit (consciousness) or is there a Spirit found in a stone ? * a stone represented by a finite atomic structure of cohesion and uniformity.

.

 

[koshergrl]

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

Wow, what a huge presumption to make, as well as requiring complete faith.

Boss claimed that science couldn't detect spiritual nature. It's up to him to prove his point, not just throw out unfounded suppositions.
If science can't detect anything, then for now you'd have to say that said object probably doesn't exist. I'm agnostic, so I leave the door ajar in case someone finds anything, but until science confirms said object, you have nothing but an unfounded theory. Sorry.

No, and unfounded theory has to be proven to be wrong.

It remains a plain theory. As did the idea of electric current and gravity, until the right person came along.

 

[Boss]

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?

YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?

 

[thebrucebeat]

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?

YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?

Other than that ugliness at the end, I actually agree with this.