Christians’ bus challenge to atheist

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins

First published in News

CHRISTIANS have taken their battle with prominent atheist Richard Dawkins on to the city’s buses.

In 2009, atheists in London paid for 200 adverts on the city’s buses, declaring: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Now Premier Christian Radio has paid for its own version on Oxford buses, after the distinguished evolutionary biologist turned down the chance to debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig when he visits the city later in the month.

The new advert reads: “There’s probably no Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre.”

Prof Lane Craig is touring the UK on his Reasonable Faith tour debating with other academic atheists in London, Cambridge, Birmingham and Manchester.

An open invitation has been sent to Prof Dawkins, formerly Oxford University’s Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, to debate the existence of God at the event.

In the past Prof Dawkins has said he will not debate with “people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debators.”

The adverts will appear on 30 Stagecoach vehicles from Monday for two weeks.

Prof Craig said the poster campaign “leaves a shred of hope that he may turn up”.

Related links

Comments (30)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:05pm Sat 8 Oct 11

downtown dave says...

There's probably no God? http://atheistlegiti
macy.blogspot.com/
There's probably no God? http://atheistlegiti macy.blogspot.com/ downtown dave
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Sat 8 Oct 11

Dilligaf2010 says...

There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion
There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Sat 8 Oct 11

EMBOX1 says...

“There’s probably no Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre.”

The existance of Dawkins is a scientific fact, proven by a simple test which can be carried out at any time.

Silly, silly Prof Lane Craig. A man of such intellectual ability should not be making such schoolboy errors.
“There’s probably no Dawkins. Now stop worrying and enjoy Oct 25th at the Sheldonian Theatre.” The existance of Dawkins is a scientific fact, proven by a simple test which can be carried out at any time. Silly, silly Prof Lane Craig. A man of such intellectual ability should not be making such schoolboy errors. EMBOX1
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Sat 8 Oct 11

Darkforbid says...

"Silly, silly Prof Lane Craig. A
man of such intellectual
ability should not be making
such schoolboy errors."

Sorry EMBOX1, Lane was right your wrong.
"Silly, silly Prof Lane Craig. A man of such intellectual ability should not be making such schoolboy errors." Sorry EMBOX1, Lane was right your wrong. Darkforbid
  • Score: 0

2:24am Sun 9 Oct 11

Birdieupon says...

For the record, that closing quote in the article comes from Dr Peter May (UK Director of the Tour) and not Prof Craig.
For the record, that closing quote in the article comes from Dr Peter May (UK Director of the Tour) and not Prof Craig. Birdieupon
  • Score: 0

2:24am Sun 9 Oct 11

Birdieupon says...

For the record, that closing quote in the article comes from Dr Peter May (UK Director of the Tour) and not Prof Craig.
For the record, that closing quote in the article comes from Dr Peter May (UK Director of the Tour) and not Prof Craig. Birdieupon
  • Score: 0

5:21am Sun 9 Oct 11

Lord Peter Macvey says...

Dilligaf2010 wrote:
There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion
And NO BUDDAH, MOHAMMED, ETC, but the killing carries on in SOME of their fictional names. There must be "summat in it" or else Billions of people wouldn't ruin their live by following the laws of a fictional being. Personally I follow the Marquis De Sade. He seemed like a nice chappie.
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion[/p][/quote]And NO BUDDAH, MOHAMMED, ETC, but the killing carries on in SOME of their fictional names. There must be "summat in it" or else Billions of people wouldn't ruin their live by following the laws of a fictional being. Personally I follow the Marquis De Sade. He seemed like a nice chappie. Lord Peter Macvey
  • Score: 0

8:44am Sun 9 Oct 11

Lord Palmerstone says...

Three Cheers for Dawkins' (Squire of Over Norton ) Didn't you love the contrasting by him of the "alien rubbish" (sic) taught at Mohammedan schools with the "purity" of science. I know he's a sums boy but he must have done a little history which presumably included mention of the "pure science" of Nazi and Stalinist scientists-real scientists with university professorships, just like the Squire.Before anyone says the obvious, I'm not a Mohammedan and in fact I'm an atheist only not, I hope, a silly self-publicising in-yer-face type atheist like the Squire.
Three Cheers for Dawkins' (Squire of Over Norton ) Didn't you love the contrasting by him of the "alien rubbish" (sic) taught at Mohammedan schools with the "purity" of science. I know he's a sums boy but he must have done a little history which presumably included mention of the "pure science" of Nazi and Stalinist scientists-real scientists with university professorships, just like the Squire.Before anyone says the obvious, I'm not a Mohammedan and in fact I'm an atheist only not, I hope, a silly self-publicising in-yer-face type atheist like the Squire. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Sun 9 Oct 11

abetterhope says...

Craig is primarily a leading philosopher of religion. He is a significant figure in the field as anyone working in it will tell you. He has published in a number of the leading research journals on the exact subjects that Dawkins has raised. It is groundless and cowardly to suggest that he is simply a public debater. Dawkins isn't afraid of giving Craig publicity, he's afraid of getting bad reviews.

For all Dawkins interest in intellectual reasonableness, we have reached a point of denial and spin very quickly. He only published a few years ago.
Craig is primarily a leading philosopher of religion. He is a significant figure in the field as anyone working in it will tell you. He has published in a number of the leading research journals on the exact subjects that Dawkins has raised. It is groundless and cowardly to suggest that he is simply a public debater. Dawkins isn't afraid of giving Craig publicity, he's afraid of getting bad reviews. For all Dawkins interest in intellectual reasonableness, we have reached a point of denial and spin very quickly. He only published a few years ago. abetterhope
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Sun 9 Oct 11

abetterhope says...

Craig is primarily a leading philosopher of religion. He is a significant figure in the field as anyone working in it will tell you. He has published in a number of the leading research journals on the exact subjects that Dawkins has raised. It is groundless and cowardly to suggest that he is simply a public debater. Dawkins isn't afraid of giving Craig publicity, he's afraid of getting bad reviews.

For all Dawkins interest in intellectual reasonableness, we have reached a point of denial and spin very quickly. He only published a few years ago.
Craig is primarily a leading philosopher of religion. He is a significant figure in the field as anyone working in it will tell you. He has published in a number of the leading research journals on the exact subjects that Dawkins has raised. It is groundless and cowardly to suggest that he is simply a public debater. Dawkins isn't afraid of giving Craig publicity, he's afraid of getting bad reviews. For all Dawkins interest in intellectual reasonableness, we have reached a point of denial and spin very quickly. He only published a few years ago. abetterhope
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Sun 9 Oct 11

Aikenhead says...

Why should Mr. Dawkins "debate" such an obsessive, smug self-publicist with no actual arguments - but just a bag full of rhetoric and philosophical fallacies, and a convincing presentational technique? Dr. Craig would make a very good second-hand car salesman.

Have any of you actually listened to Dr. Craig's "arguments"? They are painfully lacking in any kind of coherence, and are based on false premises and cod philosophical constructs that do not prove or assert anything. He is also guilty of special pleading with regard to his main defence of a "caused cause" - the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Anybody who wants evidence of Dr. Craig's shoddy arguments ought to seek out his debate with Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Ahmed utterly humiliated Craig in this "debate" by actually deconstructing his arguments and fallacies. I take my hat off to Arif for having the patience to do this, but I imagine Mr. Dawkins doesn't have the patience to go through such a laborious process.

Anybody going to these "debates" had better keep in mind that reality has nothing to do with presentation style or rhetoric. If you do keep this in mind, you will find Dr. Craig's "arguments" are completely meaningless. This is something that an increasing number of people are realising.
Why should Mr. Dawkins "debate" such an obsessive, smug self-publicist with no actual arguments - but just a bag full of rhetoric and philosophical fallacies, and a convincing presentational technique? Dr. Craig would make a very good second-hand car salesman. Have any of you actually listened to Dr. Craig's "arguments"? They are painfully lacking in any kind of coherence, and are based on false premises and cod philosophical constructs that do not prove or assert anything. He is also guilty of special pleading with regard to his main defence of a "caused cause" - the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Anybody who wants evidence of Dr. Craig's shoddy arguments ought to seek out his debate with Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Ahmed utterly humiliated Craig in this "debate" by actually deconstructing his arguments and fallacies. I take my hat off to Arif for having the patience to do this, but I imagine Mr. Dawkins doesn't have the patience to go through such a laborious process. Anybody going to these "debates" had better keep in mind that reality has nothing to do with presentation style or rhetoric. If you do keep this in mind, you will find Dr. Craig's "arguments" are completely meaningless. This is something that an increasing number of people are realising. Aikenhead
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Sun 9 Oct 11

Aikenhead says...

Why should Mr. Dawkins "debate" such an obsessive, smug self-publicist with no actual arguments - but just a bag full of rhetoric and philosophical fallacies, and a convincing presentational technique? Dr. Craig would make a very good second-hand car salesman.

Have any of you actually listened to Dr. Craig's "arguments"? They are painfully lacking in any kind of coherence, and are based on false premises and cod philosophical constructs that do not prove or assert anything. He is also guilty of special pleading with regard to his main defence of a "caused cause" - the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Anybody who wants evidence of Dr. Craig's shoddy arguments ought to seek out his debate with Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Ahmed utterly humiliated Craig in this "debate" by actually deconstructing his arguments and fallacies. I take my hat off to Arif for having the patience to do this, but I imagine Mr. Dawkins doesn't have the patience to go through such a laborious process.

Anybody going to these "debates" had better keep in mind that reality has nothing to do with presentation style or rhetoric. If you do keep this in mind, you will find Dr. Craig's "arguments" are completely meaningless. This is something that an increasing number of people are realising.
Why should Mr. Dawkins "debate" such an obsessive, smug self-publicist with no actual arguments - but just a bag full of rhetoric and philosophical fallacies, and a convincing presentational technique? Dr. Craig would make a very good second-hand car salesman. Have any of you actually listened to Dr. Craig's "arguments"? They are painfully lacking in any kind of coherence, and are based on false premises and cod philosophical constructs that do not prove or assert anything. He is also guilty of special pleading with regard to his main defence of a "caused cause" - the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Anybody who wants evidence of Dr. Craig's shoddy arguments ought to seek out his debate with Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Ahmed utterly humiliated Craig in this "debate" by actually deconstructing his arguments and fallacies. I take my hat off to Arif for having the patience to do this, but I imagine Mr. Dawkins doesn't have the patience to go through such a laborious process. Anybody going to these "debates" had better keep in mind that reality has nothing to do with presentation style or rhetoric. If you do keep this in mind, you will find Dr. Craig's "arguments" are completely meaningless. This is something that an increasing number of people are realising. Aikenhead
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Sun 9 Oct 11

abetterhope says...

Aikenhead,

It seems to me that you think that philosophical constructs do not assert or prove anything.

I think it wise therefore to ask if you are happy for this same measure to be applied to your assertion that Craig's arguments are based on faulty premises, and philosophical assertions that prove nothing.

Are you happy to face the canon of your own logic, or do you yourself offer us a true example of incoherence?

Your present dubious line of reasoning (which makes use of philosophical assertions while claiming that they prove nothing) might satisfy you, but they are themselves a clear example of incoherent argument, while you offer nothing more than alleged errors in Craig's work.

Your comment only serves to underline the observation that the fact of logic and talk of logic are very different, and that you like many of Dawkins supporters are unable to reference and understand the distinction.
Aikenhead, It seems to me that you think that philosophical constructs do not assert or prove anything. I think it wise therefore to ask if you are happy for this same measure to be applied to your assertion that Craig's arguments are based on faulty premises, and philosophical assertions that prove nothing. Are you happy to face the canon of your own logic, or do you yourself offer us a true example of incoherence? Your present dubious line of reasoning (which makes use of philosophical assertions while claiming that they prove nothing) might satisfy you, but they are themselves a clear example of incoherent argument, while you offer nothing more than alleged errors in Craig's work. Your comment only serves to underline the observation that the fact of logic and talk of logic are very different, and that you like many of Dawkins supporters are unable to reference and understand the distinction. abetterhope
  • Score: 0

1:33am Mon 10 Oct 11

Aikenhead says...

I never said or implied all philosophical constructs do not prove or assert anything, I just stated that Dr. Craig's claims do not prove or assert anything.

You can apply any measure to my arguments because I'm not actually claiming anything other than the failure of Dr. Craig's arguments to lead to any conclusion. If this was not the case you would quote me Craig's argument that does. He doesn't, and you don't.

What is wrong with my "canon of true logic"? What have I said that is incoherent? What is dubious about my present line of reasoning? What philosophical assertions have I made?

You then say that I (along with supporters of Dawkins) are unable to reference and understand the distinction between the fact of logic and the talk of logic. This sounds like the cod-nonsense Dr. Craig would come out with. So you tell me, what is the distinction, and apply it to what I said previously.

In the meantime, why don't you go listen to Dr. Craig's "debate" with cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Ahmed carefully pulls apart Craig's fallacies and rhetoric will some skill and relish. When see past Craig's style and debating tricks, you will see he has poor arguments.

Frankly, I am amazed at the number of people who are gullible enough to think Dr Craig's arguments have any strength to them. I can only think that they are wowed by his debating technique and slick style. Like I said, Craig would make a good used car salesman.

Finally, let us get to the nub of the matter. Dr. Craig's antics and ranting over the past few months because Dawkins doesn't want to meet this obsessive self-publicist has become rather amusing. Dawkins is interested in what is true, and what can be demonstrated as true. Dr. Craig does not share that view.
I never said or implied all philosophical constructs do not prove or assert anything, I just stated that Dr. Craig's claims do not prove or assert anything. You can apply any measure to my arguments because I'm not actually claiming anything other than the failure of Dr. Craig's arguments to lead to any conclusion. If this was not the case you would quote me Craig's argument that does. He doesn't, and you don't. What is wrong with my "canon of true logic"? What have I said that is incoherent? What is dubious about my present line of reasoning? What philosophical assertions have I made? You then say that I (along with supporters of Dawkins) are unable to reference and understand the distinction between the fact of logic and the talk of logic. This sounds like the cod-nonsense Dr. Craig would come out with. So you tell me, what is the distinction, and apply it to what I said previously. In the meantime, why don't you go listen to Dr. Craig's "debate" with cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed. Ahmed carefully pulls apart Craig's fallacies and rhetoric will some skill and relish. When see past Craig's style and debating tricks, you will see he has poor arguments. Frankly, I am amazed at the number of people who are gullible enough to think Dr Craig's arguments have any strength to them. I can only think that they are wowed by his debating technique and slick style. Like I said, Craig would make a good used car salesman. Finally, let us get to the nub of the matter. Dr. Craig's antics and ranting over the past few months because Dawkins doesn't want to meet this obsessive self-publicist has become rather amusing. Dawkins is interested in what is true, and what can be demonstrated as true. Dr. Craig does not share that view. Aikenhead
  • Score: 0

10:32am Mon 10 Oct 11

Lord Palmerstone says...

"this obsessive self-publicist " appears to be a perfect description of the Squire of Over Norton. I cannot think of any reason except self obsession to make the man propose Jugendlagen for atheist instruction.And it works: everyone's heard of noisy Dawkins, wouldn't be surprised if he's made it into Hello magazine. To my shame I've never heard of Dr Craig or Mr Ahmed, but I suspect I'm reading their words in the above posts
"this obsessive self-publicist " appears to be a perfect description of the Squire of Over Norton. I cannot think of any reason except self obsession to make the man propose Jugendlagen for atheist instruction.And it works: everyone's heard of noisy Dawkins, wouldn't be surprised if he's made it into Hello magazine. To my shame I've never heard of Dr Craig or Mr Ahmed, but I suspect I'm reading their words in the above posts Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

10:45am Mon 10 Oct 11

eatmygoal says...

I am sure it not so much the case that Dawkins doesn't believe in God - he just sees him as competition.
I am sure it not so much the case that Dawkins doesn't believe in God - he just sees him as competition. eatmygoal
  • Score: 0

10:49am Mon 10 Oct 11

eatmygoal says...

Dilligaf2010 wrote:
There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion
So you don't believe that Henry VIII, Shakespeare, or Julius Caesar exist either because you can't be shown photographic evidence?
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion[/p][/quote]So you don't believe that Henry VIII, Shakespeare, or Julius Caesar exist either because you can't be shown photographic evidence? eatmygoal
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Mon 10 Oct 11

mandate says...

Anybody fancy a pint?
Anybody fancy a pint? mandate
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Mon 10 Oct 11

Dilligaf2010 says...

eatmygoal wrote:
Dilligaf2010 wrote:
There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion
So you don't believe that Henry VIII, Shakespeare, or Julius Caesar exist either because you can't be shown photographic evidence?
Ah but there is proof that they existed, very well documented evidence, but alas, in the case of God there's none, and don't mention the bible, that's not proof.
[quote][p][bold]eatmygoal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion[/p][/quote]So you don't believe that Henry VIII, Shakespeare, or Julius Caesar exist either because you can't be shown photographic evidence?[/p][/quote]Ah but there is proof that they existed, very well documented evidence, but alas, in the case of God there's none, and don't mention the bible, that's not proof. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Mon 10 Oct 11

Lord Palmerstone says...

Dilligaf2010 wrote:
eatmygoal wrote:
Dilligaf2010 wrote:
There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion
So you don't believe that Henry VIII, Shakespeare, or Julius Caesar exist either because you can't be shown photographic evidence?
Ah but there is proof that they existed, very well documented evidence, but alas, in the case of God there's none, and don't mention the bible, that's not proof.
There's no proof that "bad lifestyles" cost taxpayers more through the NHS than "good lifestyles" (it may be cheaper for people to die in their 50's than have years of geriatric care) but it seems axiomatic in our current Britain that it is so. New gods, dear boy, new gods.
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eatmygoal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion[/p][/quote]So you don't believe that Henry VIII, Shakespeare, or Julius Caesar exist either because you can't be shown photographic evidence?[/p][/quote]Ah but there is proof that they existed, very well documented evidence, but alas, in the case of God there's none, and don't mention the bible, that's not proof.[/p][/quote]There's no proof that "bad lifestyles" cost taxpayers more through the NHS than "good lifestyles" (it may be cheaper for people to die in their 50's than have years of geriatric care) but it seems axiomatic in our current Britain that it is so. New gods, dear boy, new gods. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Mon 10 Oct 11

Dilligaf2010 says...

mandate wrote:
Anybody fancy a pint?
You buying?
[quote][p][bold]mandate[/bold] wrote: Anybody fancy a pint?[/p][/quote]You buying? Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Mon 10 Oct 11

hatofthecat says...

I have always felt that God botherers of all sects should be treated much as Schrödinger's cat, i.e. locked in a sealed box with a flask of poison. This would allow them to contemplate the existance or let's face it NOT, of their "invisible friend" without annoying the rest of us.
I have always felt that God botherers of all sects should be treated much as Schrödinger's cat, i.e. locked in a sealed box with a flask of poison. This would allow them to contemplate the existance or let's face it NOT, of their "invisible friend" without annoying the rest of us. hatofthecat
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Mon 10 Oct 11

Dilligaf2010 says...

I've got nothing against those that believe in the existence of a God, but I'm more likely to believe somebody that's been abducted by aliens, than somebody that's seen, or spoken to, God.
Let's face it there's more likely to be other intelligent life out there in Space, than there is to be a Supreme Being.
I've got nothing against those that believe in the existence of a God, but I'm more likely to believe somebody that's been abducted by aliens, than somebody that's seen, or spoken to, God. Let's face it there's more likely to be other intelligent life out there in Space, than there is to be a Supreme Being. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 0

9:39am Tue 11 Oct 11

LadyPenelope says...

Lord Peter Macvey wrote:
Dilligaf2010 wrote: There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion
And NO BUDDAH, MOHAMMED, ETC, but the killing carries on in SOME of their fictional names. There must be "summat in it" or else Billions of people wouldn't ruin their live by following the laws of a fictional being. Personally I follow the Marquis De Sade. He seemed like a nice chappie.
Mohammed existed. He was a caravan sales man and the chosen one who Allah came to and asked to pass his message on to the people... Mohammed then threated violence to those who would not believe him, and so religion started as it meant to go on, with violence always at its heart.

Ditto for all religions, although some less violent than others.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Peter Macvey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: There's no probably about it, somebody show me a photo, then I may change my opinion[/p][/quote]And NO BUDDAH, MOHAMMED, ETC, but the killing carries on in SOME of their fictional names. There must be "summat in it" or else Billions of people wouldn't ruin their live by following the laws of a fictional being. Personally I follow the Marquis De Sade. He seemed like a nice chappie.[/p][/quote]Mohammed existed. He was a caravan sales man and the chosen one who Allah came to and asked to pass his message on to the people... Mohammed then threated violence to those who would not believe him, and so religion started as it meant to go on, with violence always at its heart. Ditto for all religions, although some less violent than others. LadyPenelope
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Tue 11 Oct 11

riman09 says...

Science, is in effect, a deception of some sorts if you look at it that way. It is constantly evolving. Not everything real can be proven by science, because scientists have to establish the tools to 'prove anything' first before science could testify to it!

Can you scientifically prove love exists? Can you bring me a pound of love? Yet it exists; otherwise how are we here? Hate, fear, and greed exist too, but you cannot see, taste, hear, smell or touch them!

In the room where some critics are writing from there are radio waves, and mobile voices zipping through. Yet they cannot see, taste, smell, feel, or hear them .

Nuclear power exists, yet you cannot see, taste, smell, hear, or feel it with your hands! A 100 years ago, they did not think it existed, until somebody found the key to its existence. So, you will need other 'devices' or receivers to contact the spiritual!

What's the summary of the whole matter? You have to have the tools to identify God, before you actually can disprove His existence.

Food for thought; today is 11th October, 2011. 2011 from what? It is 2011 A.D. meaning Ano Domini, testifying to the fact that Jesus Christ did come on this earth, . That was an internationally agreed marker, until some people, to comfort themselves in sinful living, decided to propagate the fallacy that God does not exist.

Finally, there has been a photo taken, the first ever record of a supernatural Light, and It's there for all to see. http://endtimemessag
e.info/supernatural.
htm You can close your eyes, and pretend It isn't there, but that doesn't alter the facts.
Science, is in effect, a deception of some sorts if you look at it that way. It is constantly evolving. Not everything real can be proven by science, because scientists have to establish the tools to 'prove anything' first before science could testify to it! Can you scientifically prove love exists? Can you bring me a pound of love? Yet it exists; otherwise how are we here? Hate, fear, and greed exist too, but you cannot see, taste, hear, smell or touch them! In the room where some critics are writing from there are radio waves, and mobile voices [for phones] zipping through. Yet they cannot see, taste, smell, feel, or hear them [except by getting the right device]. Nuclear power exists, yet you cannot see, taste, smell, hear, or feel it with your hands! A 100 years ago, they did not think it existed, until somebody found the key to its existence. So, you will need other 'devices' or receivers to contact the spiritual! What's the summary of the whole matter? You have to have the tools to identify God, [or anything for that matter] before you actually can disprove His existence. Food for thought; today is 11th October, 2011. 2011 from what? It is 2011 A.D. meaning Ano Domini, testifying to the fact that Jesus Christ did come on this earth, [Himself proving the existence of God]. That was an internationally agreed marker, until some people, to comfort themselves in sinful living, decided to propagate the fallacy that God does not exist. Finally, there has been a photo taken, the first ever record of a supernatural Light, and It's there for all to see. http://endtimemessag e.info/supernatural. htm You can close your eyes, [and brains] and pretend It isn't there, but that doesn't alter the facts. riman09
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Tue 11 Oct 11

Aikenhead says...

riman09,

Sadly for you, all those things you mention correlate with changes in the brain. This has been measured and confirmed.

But even then, this does not logically follow that God can exist simply because there are some brain-created concepts such as love, jealousy, etc. that don't exist in a physical sense. It is a complete non sequiter.

It is awfully sad to see you jump the shark the end with an attempt to demonstrate that "supernatural light" has been photographed. I would like you to demonstrate how you would differentiate between light and "supernatural light". I bet you can't.

Finally, the assertion that the calendar "proves" Jesus came back to Earth is also a logical fallacy. By your own logic, the Islamic calendar proves Mohammed was real and also received divine commands from Allah. No doubt you disagree, but your logic demands that you confirm this view - unless of course, you disavow Jesus' divine nature.

That's the problem with theists - they always end up contradicting themselves.
riman09, Sadly for you, all those things you mention correlate with changes in the brain. This has been measured and confirmed. But even then, this does not logically follow that God can exist simply because there are some brain-created concepts such as love, jealousy, etc. that don't exist in a physical sense. It is a complete non sequiter. It is awfully sad to see you jump the shark the end with an attempt to demonstrate that "supernatural light" has been photographed. I would like you to demonstrate how you would differentiate between light and "supernatural light". I bet you can't. Finally, the assertion that the calendar "proves" Jesus came back to Earth is also a logical fallacy. By your own logic, the Islamic calendar proves Mohammed was real and also received divine commands from Allah. No doubt you disagree, but your logic demands that you confirm this view - unless of course, you disavow Jesus' divine nature. That's the problem with theists - they always end up contradicting themselves. Aikenhead
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Tue 11 Oct 11

Gungy23 says...

I agree a pint would be good!

Dare I mention Darwin and evolution!

Please do not send any Iranians with bomb sports vests on!

Peace be with you all!
I agree a pint would be good! Dare I mention Darwin and evolution! Please do not send any Iranians with bomb sports vests on! Peace be with you all! Gungy23
  • Score: 0

9:58am Wed 12 Oct 11

ox-cabby says...

Gungy23, nice to have bumped into you again.

Your right, dont mention Darwin please . . He was the same breed as DORKins. . . Just fallacies and lies. . Or did they call them theories.

GOSH, what life must have been like to be a baboon! . . .hilarious!
Gungy23, nice to have bumped into you again. Your right, dont mention Darwin please . . He was the same breed as DORKins. . . Just fallacies and lies. . Or did they call them theories. GOSH, what life must have been like to be a baboon! . . .hilarious! ox-cabby
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Wed 12 Oct 11

Gungy23 says...

ox-cabby wrote:
Gungy23, nice to have bumped into you again.

Your right, dont mention Darwin please . . He was the same breed as DORKins. . . Just fallacies and lies. . Or did they call them theories.

GOSH, what life must have been like to be a baboon! . . .hilarious!
Ha Ha ha!LOL
[quote][p][bold]ox-cabby[/bold] wrote: Gungy23, nice to have bumped into you again. Your right, dont mention Darwin please . . He was the same breed as DORKins. . . Just fallacies and lies. . Or did they call them theories. GOSH, what life must have been like to be a baboon! . . .hilarious![/p][/quote]Ha Ha ha!LOL Gungy23
  • Score: 0

2:14am Thu 13 Oct 11

talisada1969 says...

I,m dyslexic and I can tell you there is no DOG
I,m dyslexic and I can tell you there is no DOG talisada1969
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree