Dovada Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 No, I didn't. Feel free to quote me where you think I did this if you disagree. Following that, you're welcome to your own opinion, not your own facts. The concept of proof falls squarely into the realm of facts. I apologize, you are right in that yourself you did not ask. But many have one way or another and I was trying to make a point. Proof is in the individuals understanding and belief, those who have not received, perceive another operates under the faith banner.
iNow Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Proof is in the individuals understanding and belief Perhaps, but evidence is not... and evidence is precisely what matters. You lack it. All believers lack it. All you have is faith. Faith is perhaps the single worst possible reason to accept something as true. those who have not received, perceive another operates under the faith banner. Can you please restate this? I am not able to parse your intended meaning given the current syntax and word choice, and I'm pretty sure the failure lies with the way you've presented it and not with me as "the receiver."
Dovada Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Perhaps, but evidence is not... and evidence is precisely what matters. You lack it. All believers lack it. All you have is faith. Faith is perhaps the single worst possible reason to accept something as true. Can you please restate this? I am not able to parse your intended meaning given the current syntax and word choice, and I'm pretty sure the failure lies with the way you've presented it and not with me as "the receiver." When information is received from the Holy Spirit it comes in a manner that makes perfect sense. Faith is not required to understand it. To another person who does not receive it directly, the first person appears to accept the information on the basis of faith, unless the first person explains the truth contained in the information.
dimreepr Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 When information is received from the Holy Spirit it comes in a manner that makes perfect sense. Faith is not required to understand it. To another person who does not receive it directly, the first person appears to accept the information on the basis of faith, unless the first person explains the truth contained in the information. As you fully understand the bible perhaps you can explain what, exactly, is it trying to teach?
Dovada Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) As you fully understand the bible perhaps you can explain what, exactly, is it trying to teach? In two words "Not possible": Klaynos the moderator told me not to bring the subject again when he closed the last thread down: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54622-contradictions-religion-vs-science/page__st__140 Moderator Note I agree with the last two posters, you're not answering the questions. You cannot cite a single source as evidence for that source, nor can you assume that just because you believe something then it is true for all. Because of this I do not see this thread going anywhere other than downhill fast. It's therefore closed. Please do not reintroduce this topic. I have taken enough of a liberty to say what I have said. What I have said is the truth even though there is the claim I do not have evidence for it. I am not an idiot. I am highly skilled in what I do. If you start a thread in asking a question I will attempt to answer but be careful that the moderators do not close the threads down. Sometimes what is obvious to me, can take sometime to work out how to explain it to others. Some knowledge is sightly different to accepted physics, in that current physics does not understand the original concept especially regarding gravitation theory. Edited February 9, 2012 by Dovada
Tres Juicy Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I am highly skilled in what I do. What exactly is it that you do?
Dovada Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 What exactly is it that you do? Read my profile.
Klaynos Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 In two words "Not possible": Klaynos the moderator told me not to bring the subject again when he closed the last thread down: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54622-contradictions-religion-vs-science/page__st__140 I have taken enough of a liberty to say what I have said. What I have said is the truth even though there is the claim I do not have evidence for it. I am not an idiot. I am highly skilled in what I do. If you start a thread in asking a question I will attempt to answer but be careful that the moderators do not close the threads down. Sometimes what is obvious to me, can take sometime to work out how to explain it to others. Some knowledge is sightly different to accepted physics, in that current physics does not understand the original concept especially regarding gravitation theory. ! Moderator Note To clarify, you can answer questions added by other people. I'd be careful not to hijack another thread though. Please review our rules. The problem in the last thread was you were effectively circular-citing continually, that is not acceptable. Please do not respond to this modnote.
Tres Juicy Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Read my profile. So which part qualifies you to preach to everyone here that you know better than us? What is the point you're trying to make? All I see is someone who thinks they can say whatever they want without backing it up with any evidence other than "god told me" It's weak at best and I can see this thread being closed very soon because you are not saying anything, there is nothing to discuss, and whenever you are asked to back up something you've said you cite your imaginary friend "god" as the source. Pointless
Dovada Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 So which part qualifies you to preach to everyone here that you know better than us? What is the point you're trying to make? All I see is someone who thinks they can say whatever they want without backing it up with any evidence other than "god told me" It's weak at best and I can see this thread being closed very soon because you are not saying anything, there is nothing to discuss, and whenever you are asked to back up something you've said you cite your imaginary friend "god" as the source. Pointless As you can see by the warning above there are rules that must be adhered to. This thread is not mine and I can be accused of hijacking a thread as I have been in the past. I am not preaching like the church does, I do not have a following or cult, I have very specific knowledge given by the Spiritual power of God. Each of us has special gifts, which the Spirit can use for a special purpose. What has been given to me is for a purpose which will come clearer to me in time. This also means that what is given to others can be for different purposes. Primarily all special gifts are for the benefit of mankind in general. Those that have been given a gift through the Spirit acknowledge the existence of the Spirit hence over the many thousands of years the various books of the scripture have been written, so that nothing may be lost. To attack the scripture calling it rubbish or similar is childish and disrespectful. The reason I say this is because such attacks can easily start unnecessary conflict even to the point of wars. It is respectful to ask why something is believed and judge according to what is referred to as witnessing. If two or more make the same statement, as in the law courts then it be accepted as a potential truth. Just saying God does not exist does not mean it is the truth, Just as saying God does exist cannot be verified. Mathew 18 verse 16: "But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that `by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' Understand this, the cosmos (God) is trying to educate us through the Spirit. We live by Spirit which means we exist in the same format as God exists (Spirit), for this reason we should listen to our innermost guidance. Who has had a thought occur to them just before a person contacts them and said "I was just thinking about you" or something similar to this. Most of us have. Communication is not restricted to taxi cabs or listening to your favorite radio station. Light itself is a form of radio waves, so is heat, communication is the natural process of the cosmos. For this reason do not be surprised if you receive communication from the cosmos itself. We are supposed to be intelligent human beings, let us act like it.
Tres Juicy Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I am not preaching like the church does But you are preaching, you only have to look back over your posts to see that I have very specific knowledge given by the Spiritual power of God. What is it then? We are supposed to be intelligent human beings, let us act like it. Agreed, you start 1
Dovada Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 But you are preaching, you only have to look back over your posts to see that What is it then? Agreed, you start Go back and read again what I said before: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63614-the-power-of-god/page__st__60 Refresh your memory again.
Tres Juicy Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Go back and read again what I said before: http://www.sciencefo...od/page__st__60 Refresh your memory again. We're going in circles.... How about you refresh your memory: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules Either answer the questions you are being asked and back them up with facts or expect this thread to be closed You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts Remember, we will require facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
njaohnt Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 I am the creator of the universe I used my magical powers to produce everything you perceive Prove me wrong Okay. You are not the creator, because you have not done anything. You haven't made the universe. Why? Use your magical powers to make me feel that you're there. You haven't done any of the many things that my creator has done. Prove me wrong.
Tres Juicy Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 Okay. You are not the creator, because you have not done anything. You haven't made the universe. I created the universe and everything in it. This is a fact. Everything happens because it is my will. Why? Use your magical powers to make me feel that you're there. You haven't done any of the many things that my creator has done. I am your creator and as such I have done everything. I have spoken directly to you, I would say that in doing so I have already offered more proof than any false "god" has. Can you not feel that I am here? You are interacting with me after all. Maybe you should try harder Prove me wrong. You are wrong - Take it directly from the creator of the universe. Do not argue with my divine knowledge. You could not possibly compete with your creator and, indeed it would be blasphemous to do so Done 1
njaohnt Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 1.Forgiveness for what? What debt, what evidence for this debt do you have? 2.One punishment for all crimes is not fair to begin with, eternal torment is cruel and the sign of a psychopathic monster not a god. 1. The Bible. 2. It is fair. You just don't understand it. Like I said, it's like gravity. Imagine that you are falling off a building that is, say 1 000 m high. You are going to die, right? No, there is an extremely stretchy trampoline at the bottom, and you don't die. It is just the way things work. Was that trampoline fair? Should he of died? He is not a monster. If there was no trampoline, and you went to catch him, you would both die. Are you evil for not doing that? No. It is just the way things work outside our universe.
njaohnt Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 1.Forgiveness for what? What debt, what evidence for this debt do you have? 2.One punishment for all crimes is not fair to begin with, eternal torment is cruel and the sign of a psychopathic monster not a god. 1. The Bible. 2. It is fair. You just don't understand it. Like I said, it's like gravity. Imagine that you are falling off a building that is, say 1 000 m high. You are going to die, right? No, there is an extremely stretchy trampoline at the bottom, and you don't die. It is just the way things work. Was that trampoline fair? Should he of died? He is not a monster. If there was no trampoline, and you went to catch him, you would both die. Are you evil for not doing that? No. It is just the way things work outside our universe. Maybe you should try harder I have failed. Done. No Agreed, you start Very rude, indeed. -1
Moontanman Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 1. The Bible. As you have been told before the bible is not evidence, the bible is wrong, it is wrong abotu almost everything is claims, using as evidence is not acceptable. 2. It is fair. You just don't understand it. Like I said, it's like gravity. Imagine that you are falling off a building that is, say 1 000 m high. You are going to die, right? No, there is an extremely stretchy trampoline at the bottom, and you don't die. It is just the way things work. Was that trampoline fair? Should he of died? He is not a monster. If there was no trampoline, and you went to catch him, you would both die. Are you evil for not doing that? No. It is just the way things work outside our universe. The concept of hell is unjust, that is my assertion, the same punishment for all crimes is unjust, your answer to that assertion as stated here makes no sense and does not address the issue of Hell being unjust... As you can see by the warning above there are rules that must be adhered to. This thread is not mine and I can be accused of hijacking a thread as I have been in the past. This true, there are rules and you do not follow them... I am not preaching like the church does, I do not have a following or cult, I have very specific knowledge given by the Spiritual power of God. Each of us has special gifts, which the Spirit can use for a special purpose. What has been given to me is for a purpose which will come clearer to me in time. You need to support that assertion with some evidence, so far all you have done is make claims with no supporting evidence... This also means that what is given to others can be for different purposes. Primarily all special gifts are for the benefit of mankind in general. Those that have been given a gift through the Spirit acknowledge the existence of the Spirit hence over the many thousands of years the various books of the scripture have been written, so that nothing may be lost. Books of the "scripture" have indeed been lost, the bible has been changed so many times by humans with an agenda that none of it can be trusted as original much less accurate. To attack the scripture calling it rubbish or similar is childish and disrespectful. The reason I say this is because such attacks can easily start unnecessary conflict even to the point of wars. It is respectful to ask why something is believed and judge according to what is referred to as witnessing. If two or more make the same statement, as in the law courts then it be accepted as a potential truth. Just saying God does not exist does not mean it is the truth, Just as saying God does exist cannot be verified. Just saying god does exist cannot be verified either and just because two people make the same claim is not evidence and the bible can be shown to be wildly inaccurate. You claim special knowledge from god, what is it? If you cannot show any evidence of that claim than it is meaningless. Mathew 18 verse 16: "But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that `by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' More unverifiable scripture and I have to ask why is your scripture any better than the scriptures of Lord Krishna? Or any other "holy" book? Understand this, the cosmos (God) is trying to educate us through the Spirit. We live by Spirit which means we exist in the same format as God exists (Spirit), for this reason we should listen to our innermost guidance. Another baseless assertion... Who has had a thought occur to them just before a person contacts them and said "I was just thinking about you" or something similar to this. Most of us have. Communication is not restricted to taxi cabs or listening to your favorite radio station. Light itself is a form of radio waves, so is heat, communication is the natural process of the cosmos. For this reason do not be surprised if you receive communication from the cosmos itself. So telepathy is real? Please show some evidence of this, anecdotal evidence is not relevant and telepathy has not been shown to be real... We are supposed to be intelligent human beings, let us act like it. We should, i do, you however do not seem to be using your intelligence but instead are relying on fairy tales and inner voices? If you believe then good for you but to assert your belief as reality is simply wrong... Some knowledge is sightly different to accepted physics, in that current physics does not understand the original concept especially regarding gravitation theory. Are you asserting that the answer to how gravity works is goddidit? Pushing god into the ever smaller hole of what we do not yet understand is kind of disrespectful of god isn't it? i have said this more than once but it is still relevant to anyone who is trying to use the god of the gaps argument. At one time we had no understanding of what lightning was or how it worked, the standard explanation of that time was God did it, lightning was gods wrath. Anyone or anything that was struck was assumed to have offended god in some manner. Then we discovered how lightning worked and we developed ways to prevent lightning from striking, we puny humans could prevent the wrath of god! a great many people of religious persuasion refused to believe it was anything else but the wrath of god, it was rather embarrassing that churches were hit more often than other buildings but science explained that by showing lightning was a natural occurrence and not supernatural. Eventually even churches were equipped with lightning rods and god was pushed out of another gap in our knowledge. When gravity is understood to have a natural mechanism that is demonstrably not supernatural what will you do with god then? Push him into a smaller gap in our knowledge? What happens when the gaps disappear? Do you see how illogical this god of the gaps argument is? 2
dimreepr Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 As you fully understand the bible perhaps you can explain what, exactly, is it trying to teach? Please, no more evasion, this is a very simple question. 1
Phi for All Posted February 9, 2012 Posted February 9, 2012 First off, unofficially (since I'm involved in this thread), this thread points up the difficulty of discussing religion. The beliefs are so sacred and wrapped up in personal trappings that any attack on the idea seems like a personal attack to the person who believes it. This kind of bias is what science is interested in minimizing or removing altogether if possible, because it affects rational judgment. I would caution everyone to take extra care to focus on the ideas and not the people who espouse them. Second, this is a science forum, so don't be surprised when citations are challenged and hard questions are asked. If there was a science textbook that someone was using as the basis of an argument, that book is subject to the same scrutiny as ANY other book used to support an idea. A scientist would receive the same treatment here if he tried to use his own book to support his ideas the way some use the Bible to support theirs. With this in mind, if you look back through the thread honestly, you'll easily see where actual discussion is taking place, and also where circular logic creates a vortex that pulls the discussion down. I am not preaching like the church does, I do not have a following or cult, I have very specific knowledge given by the Spiritual power of God. Our definition of preaching is more along the lines of stating opinion as fact, which automatically precludes honest discussion. You are definitely doing this. You are claiming, on a science forum, without any predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence, that you have knowledge given to you by God, which you expect us to take as fact. Preaching, definitely. To attack the scripture calling it rubbish or similar is childish and disrespectful. The reason I say this is because such attacks can easily start unnecessary conflict even to the point of wars. It is respectful to ask why something is believed and judge according to what is referred to as witnessing. If two or more make the same statement, as in the law courts then it be accepted as a potential truth. Just saying God does not exist does not mean it is the truth, Just as saying God does exist cannot be verified. If you had explained your stance as a belief, as the individual opinion of one follower, used phrases like, "I believe..." or "I think...", instead of preaching your beliefs as actual fact, you would have gotten a whole different response. When you start stating scripture to scientists as if it can't be questioned, you're provoking a trained response that science is conditioned to give. You are also starting unnecessary conflict, even though you acknowledge that God's existence can't be verified. Imagine that you are falling off a building that is, say 1 000 m high. You are going to die, right? No, there is an extremely stretchy trampoline at the bottom, and you don't die. It is just the way things work. Really?! "It's just the way things work"?! I've never heard of things working this way, ever. Was that trampoline fair? Should he of died? He is not a monster. If there was no trampoline, and you went to catch him, you would both die. This is such a bizarre analogy for you to use to argue what Moontanman said about eternal punishment. I don't understand it at all. Are you saying that eternal punishment for not believing in God is equally as fair as falling off a building and being saved by an enormous, super-stretchy trampoline? Are you evil for not doing that? No. It is just the way things work outside our universe. Great example of preaching. "It is just the way things work outside our universe." Bald assertion, a flat statement made as if it's established fact that you actually know how things work outside our universe. You keep doing this and yet you still complain when people get frustrated with your approach to scientific discussion. 4
Dovada Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Our definition of preaching is more along the lines of stating opinion as fact, which automatically precludes honest discussion. You are definitely doing this. You are claiming, on a science forum, without any predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence, that you have knowledge given to you by God, which you expect us to take as fact. I am not preaching to you, I have not delivered a sermon. I have stated a personal experience. How can you say I have no "predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence, that you have knowledge given to you by God". This is just your stating your opinion as fact. If you had explained your stance as a belief, as the individual opinion of one follower, used phrases like, "I believe..." or "I think...", instead of preaching your beliefs as actual fact, you would have gotten a whole different response. When you start stating scripture to scientists as if it can't be questioned, you're provoking a trained response that science is conditioned to give. You are also starting unnecessary conflict, even though you acknowledge that God's existence can't be verified. This I do not understand what you are saying. Should I have started the sentence by saying "I believe..." or "I think..."? For example: I believe "to attack the scripture calling it rubbish or similar is childish and disrespectful. The reason I say this is because such attacks can easily start unnecessary conflict even to the point of wars. It is respectful to ask why something is believed and judge according to what is referred to as witnessing. If two or more make the same statement, as in the law courts then it be accepted as a potential truth. Just saying God does not exist does not mean it is the truth, Just as saying God does exist cannot be verified."
Phi for All Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 I am not preaching to you, I have not delivered a sermon. I have stated a personal experience. I told you what our definition of preaching is. Are you purposely misrepresenting it? You may have stated a personal experience, but you drew conclusions from it that were stated as fact. How can you say I have no "predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence, that you have knowledge given to you by God". This is just your stating your opinion as fact. I didn't say you didn't have it. I said you're claiming that you have knowledge given to you by God, which you expect us to take as fact without any predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence. If you have it, you haven't shown it. This I do not understand what you are saying. Should I have started the sentence by saying "I believe..." or "I think..."?For example: I believe "to attack the scripture calling it rubbish or similar is childish and disrespectful. The reason I say this is because such attacks can easily start unnecessary conflict even to the point of wars. It is respectful to ask why something is believed and judge according to what is referred to as witnessing. If two or more make the same statement, as in the law courts then it be accepted as a potential truth. Just saying God does not exist does not mean it is the truth, Just as saying God does exist cannot be verified." I was mainly talking about all the things you claimed the Holy Spirit told you about, many of which you have speculated on here at SFN. None of those things turned out to be valid, yet you still talk about them as if they're accepted fact. But yes, when you use phrases like "I believe" you are clearly stating that your argument is opinion rather than fact. You antagonize people who have studied accepted science all their lives when you state conjecture or opinion as fact.
Moontanman Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) I am not preaching to you, I have not delivered a sermon. I have stated a personal experience. You did quite a bit of preaching before you gave us your "special information", don't violate the 9th commandment Dovoda, it looks bad for a Christian to break his own rules and going back and getting those posts is quite easy to do. How can you say I have no "predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence, that you have knowledge given to you by God". This is just your stating your opinion as fact. We can say that because you don't, if you did you would have presented it, so far you have presented no evidence at all. BTW, a personal experience is not evidence of anything... This I do not understand what you are saying. Should I have started the sentence by saying "I believe..." or "I think..."?For example: When you are referring to the reality of something you have no evidence for then yes. I believe "to attack the scripture calling it rubbish or similar is childish and disrespectful. This on the other hand is your opinion, an opinion I do not share, i think that demanding respect for your own opinion and not giving people who disagree with you respect is childish. Demanding respect for religion is debatable, i see no reason to show respect for your religion over and above any other religion or belief system. i respect your right to hold your beliefs as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's rights. The reason I say this is because such attacks can easily start unnecessary conflict even to the point of wars. It is respectful to ask why something is believed and judge according to what is referred to as witnessing. Asserting something you have no evidence for as the truth is dishonest, only religion gets such a pass in regular society, if anyone but a religious nut claimed to have heard voices he was basing his life on he would be locked up. If two or more make the same statement, as in the law courts then it be accepted as a potential truth. Just saying God does not exist does not mean it is the truth, Just as saying God does exist cannot be verified." If something cannot be verified then there is no reason to assume it exists, if it was anything but religion you would agree on this but because it's your favorite faery tale it gets a pass? I don't think so personally and on this forum it doesn't either... Potential truth? Religion at best is hearsay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule. Edited February 10, 2012 by Moontanman
Dovada Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) I told you what our definition of preaching is. Are you purposely misrepresenting it? You may have stated a personal experience, but you drew conclusions from it that were stated as fact. No, I am not purposely misrepresenting it at all. It was explained to me: 1: Why virtually all atomic structure was electrically neutral. 2: Why all atomic particles everywhere had almost identical characteristics. 3: What a gravitation field is and why we cannot detect its electromagnetic properties. 4: How gravity drives the cosmos. 5: That the gravitational field is related to the Holy Spirit. To me this information is factual. I didn't say you didn't have it. I said you're claiming that you have knowledge given to you by God, which you expect us to take as fact without any predictive, testable, repeatable scientific evidence. If you have it, you haven't shown it. I was mainly talking about all the things you claimed the Holy Spirit told you about, many of which you have speculated on here at SFN. None of those things turned out to be valid, yet you still talk about them as if they're accepted fact. Where have I been given the chance to show it? So how can you say "None of those things turned out to be valid". But yes, when you use phrases like "I believe" you are clearly stating that your argument is opinion rather than fact. You antagonize people who have studied accepted science all their lives when you state conjecture or opinion as fact. Are you saying here, that people who have studied accepted science all their lives, have it all worked out as factually correct. The reason for the existence of the energy structure relating to and the cause of gravitation is at present unknown to scientists so what right have they to judge me because the underlying structure of this energy has been revealed to me. Not only has it been revealed to me, I have checked the information against accepted scientific theories that verify that the concepts given to me are valid. This has take some considerable time to do (several years) and is still ongoing. To present that information in a sentence or two here is like trying to fit the sun into the volume of the earth. If given a chance, the information I present here should stir the minds of the scientist, stirring them to look in the right place for the answer. God is not an UN-natural phenomena, on the contrary he is a natural source of energy that drives the cosmos. The (heavenly) laws are the laws that scientists are looking for. These laws explain how and why all things exist in the format they are. What controls atomic structure, why atoms are kept in cosmic motion and most importantly why the life force exists everywhere. If the scientist of this world studied the laws laid down by the scripture and trusted in their personal and innermost thoughts they will find that what I am saying is true. You all respect Einstein. Did he not believe in God when he said: "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." and "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." and "God is subtle but he is not malicious." and "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Please all of you - Have respect for the beliefs of others. Edited February 10, 2012 by Dovada
Moontanman Posted February 10, 2012 Posted February 10, 2012 Dovoda, until you actually demonstrate your "reveled knowledge" it is irrelevant, your belief it is true is irrelevant, as is any appeal to authority such as Einstein and his views or lack there of for religion. If I only had a dollar for every time someone has claimed to know something but he can't demonstrate it because it's too complex to show or to understand or it will be ready next Tuesday... Evidence talks, horse feathers walk dude...
Recommended Posts