Existence of God ~ Which is more rational ~ Atheism or Belief in God

Wibble said:
It costs me my intellectual integrity.

And if there did turn out to be a God and he frowns on people who demand evidence before "believing" in the potential existence of something then I want no part of him and his pathetic mind games anyway.

And what intellectual integrity are you displaying by discounting real incidents which happened without any facts or data to back you up? You call this integrity? A severe lack of it, i should say! ;)
 
Wibble said:
1) You are mad or deluded. Mass hysteria or fraud are the most likely explanations.

2) Astrology is complete and utter bollocks. Any scientific examinations that have taken place have shown that it's predictive powers are random (i.e.nil).

Mass hysteria and fraud being most likely explanations? Where is your fact or proof of such a "theory". Being a scientific mind, i am sure you should know that you should have some basic fact to make such a judgement call unless ofcourse it stems from an ignorant and biased mind who simply refuses to accept proof. Which in end makes no basis for an argument cos you can bring a cow to the water but you cant force it to drink! ;)

What scientific examinations have taken place on astrology, could you share it with us? I have already thrown an offer to prove astrology, why not take it up dude, since the predictive powers are i.e NIL! If you are so strong in your believe, then maybe you should prove the "believers" wrong when there is an opportunity. We are presenting you with such opportunities, so why wade away so unskillfully? ;)
 
Mr Average said:
Would you like to debate me? ;)
RW
Is than the $10 debate or the $40 one.!!

So, you want a debate.?, or just to put across your belief.??
I will ask you one question a day, you give me a POSITIVE proven answer and we will move on.

1. When was God created.? How, by whom and for what purpose.

Bonus question. Why is Wibble not God and how do you know.?
 
I like debating. Pretty much any subject will do, its simply a hobby. That is in response to whomever questioned why I wanted to. Any knowledge I have is given by the grace of God, and I have no pride therefore relating to debate.

ukbob said:
Is than the $10 debate or the $40 one.!!

So, you want a debate.?, or just to put across your belief.??
I will ask you one question a day, you give me a POSITIVE proven answer and we will move on.

1. When was God created.? How, by whom and for what purpose.

Bonus question. Why is Wibble not God and how do you know.?

If we follow this format, what do you believe we will achieve? I am allowed to ask you questions? Will you give me a positive proven answer to them?

In Peace, Mr Average
 
redfan said:
Look at it this way, if you are an atheist and I am a christian and when we both die we find out that my belief was unfounded then we both gain nothing, but if my God exists then I gain everything and you lose the lot. So do you sit on the fence or are you going to wait for 'Proof', remember it costs nothing to believe.

This arguement is used frequently, but is a fallacy. What if there is a God, but it is not the Christian one?

In Peace, Mr Average
 
Mr Average said:
This arguement is used frequently, but is a fallacy. What if there is a God, but it is not the Christian one?

In Peace, Mr Average

Christianity is a faith much the same as the Muslim faith or any other faith, it is a teaching or way of believing so it could be that all faith leads to the same God. My introduction to God came through the Christian faith but I tend not to align myself with a particular faith I am just a believer in God.

Peace to everyone no matter what his religion is, to those who don't believe there is hope.
 
Mr Average said:
This arguement is used frequently, but is a fallacy. What if there is a God, but it is not the Christian one?

In Peace, Mr Average

Are you sure you are not tt lil Wizard dude sprouting his Islamic gibberish? I have a strange feeling you are and am waiting for the pattern to evolve.

If you believe in God, then you ought to believe that God is all mercifull and all loving cos we are all childrens of God. So why would it matter if God is not of christian background. Nonetheless he would embrace Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Voodooists etc. Why even Non believers.

If a person has lived a good life helping the poor and being kind to humanity and is a christian or a hindu, why would God treat him any different from A Muslim if the God is Allah?

I think i know where this is headed, ok common..lets debate! ;)
 
1. If you can prove in which direction the universe is moving. (i.e north south east or west)

2. If you can scientifically state the date and place of birth of the universe. (No big bang theory crap)

3. If you can scientifically prove that God if he exists could not have created the world and allowed evolution to take place at the same time.

4. If you can scientifically prve there was no grerat flodd or the Yum Sup was never didvided for the Israelites to cross in to the mid east.

then you can say God does not beleive in him.

Till then his existence can't be disproved so belief in him is mandatory. :p
 
The King Said---Are you sure you are not tt lil Wizard dude sprouting his Islamic gibberish? I have a strange feeling you are and am waiting for the pattern to evolve.

Definitely not.

The King Said---If you believe in God, then you ought to believe that God is all mercifull and all loving cos we are all childrens of God. So why would it matter if God is not of christian background. Nonetheless he would embrace Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Voodooists etc. Why even Non believers.

You are assuming and misreading. Someone claimed that believing in the Christian God was a safer bet than being an atheist. I merely said, that arguement was false, because if there was a different God that would send you to hell for not believeing in him, then the line of reasoning falls flat.

The King Said---If a person has lived a good life helping the poor and being kind to humanity and is a christian or a hindu, why would God treat him any different from A Muslim if the God is Allah?

I did not say he wouldnt. You are assuming.

The King Said---I think i know where this is headed,

I dnt think you do actually.

In Peace, Mr Average
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
1. If you can prove in which direction the universe is moving. (i.e north south east or west)

2. If you can scientifically state the date and place of birth of the universe. (No big bang theory crap)

3. If you can scientifically prove that God if he exists could not have created the world and allowed evolution to take place at the same time.

4. If you can scientifically prve there was no grerat flodd or the Yum Sup was never didvided for the Israelites to cross in to the mid east.

then you can say God does not beleive in him.

Till then his existence can't be disproved so belief in him is mandatory. :p

I am a believer in a creator being. However, your above statement is not quite correct.

It is up the claimants to prove he exists, rather than the objectors. The burden of proof always rests with the claimants.

If I claim that pink fairies live in my attic, and you cannot disprove it, does this mean they actually exist?

In Peace, Mr Average
 
Mr Average said:
The King Said---Are you sure you are not tt lil Wizard dude sprouting his Islamic gibberish? I have a strange feeling you are and am waiting for the pattern to evolve.

Definitely not.

You are assuming and misreading. Someone claimed that believing in the Christian God was a safer bet than being an atheist. I merely said, that arguement was false, because if there was a different God that would send you to hell for not believeing in him, then the line of reasoning falls flat.

I did not say he wouldnt. You are assuming.

The King Said---I think i know where this is headed,

I dnt think you do actually.

In Peace, Mr Average

Maybe you misunderstood, the comparison bet the Christian God and an atheist is an example. Does not matter if it is a Christian or Muslim God. A God is above everything. Why would you even want to prescibe to the notion of a God having a religion? Your whole reasoning has holes, if there is a God, then there is A God, no need to argue beyond that to singularise which religion he belongs to.

Ok, lead us along and lets see if i am right or wrong.

So Mr Average, who is God to you? Does he have a name or religion? And how would he treat Non followers?
 
The King said---Maybe you misunderstood, the comparison bet the Christian God and an atheist is an example.

I understand fully thank you

The King said---Why would you even want to prescibe to the notion of a God having a religion?

In your reply, please clearly show where I prescribed to the above?

The King said---Your whole reasoning has holes,

please clearly show them then.

The King said---if there is a God, then there is A God

Pardon?

The King said---no need to argue beyond that to singularise which religion he belongs to.

please clearly show where I argued or attempted to singularise?

The King said---Ok, lead us along and lets see if i am right or wrong.

What about?

In Peace, Mr Average
 
The King said:
If you believe in God, then you ought to believe that God is all mercifull and all loving cos we are all childrens of God.

Why? One does not necessarily follow the other.

You cannot make many deductions about God's character from the fact of his existence, other than if he exists, he appears to show very little interest in his creations.
 
nickm said:
Why? One does not necessarily follow the other.

You cannot make many deductions about God's character from the fact of his existence, other than if he exists, he appears to show very little interest in his creations.

Sorry nick, but you can't even deduce that.

He might be having a whale of a time for all we know, getting us to question his own existence while unconsciously doing his will.
 
Plechazunga said:
:lol:

If an omnipotent, benevolent God existed, we wouldn't have had a history of horrible violence and slaughter, women would want the same things as men, and Abramovich wouldn't have bought Chelsea. Simple as.

You can appreciated the importance of food only if you get hungry.Similarly peace can be appreciated only if you experience violence

Violence is a part of History but History is not about violence alone.There are lot of other beautiful things like knowledge,music,sport that takes precedence over violence.
 
The King said:
Maybe you misunderstood, the comparison bet the Christian God and an atheist is an example. Does not matter if it is a Christian or Muslim God. A God is above everything. Why would you even want to prescibe to the notion of a God having a religion? Your whole reasoning has holes, if there is a God, then there is A God, no need to argue beyond that to singularise which religion he belongs to.

Ok, lead us along and lets see if i am right or wrong.

So Mr Average, who is God to you? Does he have a name or religion? And how would he treat Non followers?

God does not have religion.Every individual who believes in god irrespective of the religion he practices- accepts that God is infinite.If there is more than one infinity they will cancel out each other and becomes finite and hence God becomes finite.
 
Mr Average said:
I am a believer in a creator being. However, your above statement is not quite correct.

It is up the claimants to prove he exists, rather than the objectors. The burden of proof always rests with the claimants.

If I claim that pink fairies live in my attic, and you cannot disprove it, does this mean they actually exist?

In Peace, Mr Average
WrongYou are . If you can't disprove the existence of something, by any known scientific means, then accept you must the absolutism of it's existence until you can prove other wise. So my friend if you can't by any known scientific methods prove fairies exist in your attic, pink ones that is, exist they do.

Thus the chief says :cool:
 
spinoza said:
Sorry nick, but you can't even deduce that.

He might be having a whale of a time for all we know, getting us to question his own existence while unconsciously doing his will.

I like the 'merry prankster' theory myself (reference, Bill Hicks): he leaves us all this great stuff lying around: drugs, sex, dancing, music, a brain capable of questioning the universe and imagining ways to explore creation, then he tells us we can't do any of it.
 
vijay_vr said:
He certainly loves all his creations.

So you say. Although I see precious little evidence of his love in today's world.

I wonder, since you say 'all his creations' - does god love the wasp when it injects its eggs into its body of a victim? Or does he love the eggs when they hatch and eat the still-live victim from the inside? Or maybe god loves the victim, paralysed and defenceless, after all the meek are supposed to inherit the earth.

Or perhaps you don't mean a nurturing kind of love at all, but merely the self-satisfied kind of love all artists feel towards their work, a kind of self-glorifying kind of self-love. Certainly, reading the words of the average hymn, one might think so.

It seems a remarkably indifferent form of love, the sort that would lose a custody battle in a divorce court, for example.
 
vijay_vr said:
He certainly loves all his creations.

So you say. Although I see precious little evidence of his love in today's world.

I wonder, since you say 'all his creations' - does god love the wasp when it injects its eggs into the body of its victim? Or does he love the eggs when they hatch and eat the still-live victim from the inside? Or maybe god loves the victim, paralysed and defenceless, after all the meek are supposed to inherit the earth.

Or perhaps you don't mean a nurturing kind of love at all, but merely the self-satisfied kind of love all artists feel towards their work, a kind of self-glorifying kind of self-love. Certainly, reading the words of the average hymn, one might think so.

It seems a remarkably indifferent form of love, the sort that would lose a custody battle in a divorce court, for example.
 
Mr Average said:
The King said---Maybe you misunderstood, the comparison bet the Christian God and an atheist is an example.

I understand fully thank you

The King said---Why would you even want to prescibe to the notion of a God having a religion?

In your reply, please clearly show where I prescribed to the above?

The King said---Your whole reasoning has holes,

please clearly show them then.

The King said---if there is a God, then there is A God

Pardon?

The King said---no need to argue beyond that to singularise which religion he belongs to.

please clearly show where I argued or attempted to singularise?

The King said---Ok, lead us along and lets see if i am right or wrong.

What about?

In Peace, Mr Average

By suggesting that someone could get thrown out if the believers God is not the true God, does suggest God having a religion doesnt it?

If there is a God, there is A god..note the capitalised A. Hope you get it!

Did i say that you singularised?

You wanted to have a debate but you have yet to start any nor answer any question. Cut to the chase..just answer the below questions..

- who is God to you?
- Does he have a name or religion?
- And how would he treat Non followers?
 
nickm said:
Why? One does not necessarily follow the other.

You cannot make many deductions about God's character from the fact of his existence, other than if he exists, he appears to show very little interest in his creations.

Well, you make deductions of evolution, science etc using literature/text available to you. And likewise, we believe God is all merciful using literature/text available to us. So i guess if you are right, so are we.

Show very little interest? If there is a God, and he created the world. Just look at the world ard you. And then tell me that he showed little interest in his creations!
 
The King said:
Well, you make deductions of evolution, science etc using literature/text available to you. And likewise, we believe God is all merciful using literature/text available to us. So i guess if you are right, so are we.

How, then, do you distinguish between what is 'real' in the bible, and what is myth or metaphor?

If you accept the bible is best understood as a mix of all those things, and is not a text to be taken totally 100% literally (as all but a fundie nutter would accept), how do you know what is to be believed, and what isn't? You have no way of checking it yourself, as in principle, you do in science.
 
Wibble said:
But what do the fuzzies tell you about this alleged God person?

Not a lot Obi Wan. Every time I gaze into the fuzzies I see tooth fairies and goblins. This wise old bird sees many things my son but I've never clapped eyes on JC. It's a shame - I really wanted to learn the bread and fish trick. It was not to be...
 
nickm said:
How, then, do you distinguish between what is 'real' in the bible, and what is myth or metaphor?

If you accept the bible is best understood as a mix of all those things, and is not a text to be taken totally 100% literally (as all but a fundie nutter would accept), how do you know what is to be believed, and what isn't? You have no way of checking it yourself, as in principle, you do in science.

Lets not restrict ourselves to just the Bible, lets take the holy books of the various religions.

- They speak of things which have happened in History(easily verifiable by historians, artifacts, paths etc).

- Certain religious books speak of science as well. Of mind, matter, evolution etc. These ideas complement what science exponds currently.

- Actual proof of incidents, marked out by satellite pictures(Adam's bridge), scientific experiments etc.

Yes, the holy books must not be taken literally. There is usually a large element of our own personal deduction based on the events or teachings.

IMO, science and religion are not different. In religion, one is urged to find God, internally or externally. By prayer, by searching within etc. Its a peron experiment in a way, conducted by a devotee on himself. He uses the various experiments to move forward in his search till he finds the ultimate truth, much like science isnt it?

Let me ask you something. With all our technology, brains, intelligence, deductions etc, you have to agree that we cant find answers to things in our universe, ET, our own inability to utilise 100% of our brains, what happened before the Big Bang, IS evolution random?, Astrology etc.

And do you think that the person who created this entire WORLD(if you believe in GOD) would be easy to find. That he would appear before you and say "Hi, its me" or maybe even comphrehend his very existence? Ofcourse effort is required in our part, similar to science, you have to put in dedication, effort, sweat to make something and its likewise!
 
The King said:
Lets not restrict ourselves to just the Bible, lets take the holy books of the various religions.

- They speak of things which have happened in History(easily verifiable by historians, artifacts, paths etc).

Just taking the bible examples that spring to mind such as the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, Jesus rising from the dead (assuming he existed at all), Moses parting the Red Sea, Water turning into wine, the fish and bread trick etc etc - all complete and utter bollocks and completely unverifiable. In fact 99.9% of the bible and other "Holy" books are simple fantasy

- Certain religious books speak of science as well. Of mind, matter, evolution etc. These ideas complement what science exponds currently.

Tell me more. Although I fear the "evidence" will be about as convincing as a prediction from nostredamus

- Actual proof of incidents, marked out by satellite pictures(Adam's bridge), scientific experiments etc.

See above comments.

Yes, the holy books must not be taken literally. There is usually a large element of our own personal deduction based on the events or teachings.

Deduction? Surely you mean invention.

IMO, science and religion are not different.

:eek:

In religion, one is urged to find God, internally or externally. By prayer, by searching within etc. Its a peron experiment in a way, conducted by a devotee on himself. He uses the various experiments to move forward in his search till he finds the ultimate truth, much like science isnt it?

Similar? Exact opposites in most ways. One aims to enlighten us and Religion aims to keep us in the dark ages

Let me ask you something. With all our technology, brains, intelligence, deductions etc, you have to agree that we cant find answers to things in our universe, ET, our own inability to utilise 100% of our brains, what happened before the Big Bang, IS evolution random?, Astrology etc.

I believe that we can eventually explain everything in scientific terms. Why not, it has done very well in a very short time.

According to latest thery there was nothing before the big band because that dimension was created by the big bang. I for one do not have the intellect to fully understand this issue and I doubt that there are many/any on here who do. Doesn't meant the theory is wrong though. Evolution is not random in the way you mean. And Astrology is bollocks and demonstrably so.


And do you think that the person who created this entire WORLD(if you believe in GOD) would be easy to find. That he would appear before you and say "Hi, its me" or maybe even comphrehend his very existence? Ofcourse effort is required in our part, similar to science, you have to put in dedication, effort, sweat to make something and its likewise!


I think that finding a person who created the world will take a bit more effort than you think.
 
Wibble said:
I think that finding a person who created the world will take a bit more effort than you think.

Wibbs, as much as i like to read your posts, i feel it lacks integrity severely. There is really no point when you keep discounting facts which are factual and can be proven. What you say is not scientific at all, its mere discounting.

You often fail to open your mind to even investigate "Non scientific" agendas, which is quite sad and unacceptable even from a scientific view point. Even in science, as i have so often said, things are verified before discounted. Yet you have no clue, idea, fact or data to support your inconclusive observations/posts on a subject such as God, astrology etc.

The challenge has been thrown to you, if you do not pick it up to prove me wrong but keep making preposterous remarks, then Wibbs, i am afraid you dont really have what it takes to talk on this subject!
 
I have exactly what it takes to discuss this matter, a mind unclouded by mysticism, fear or superstision.

You have not provided one iota of evidence to investigate. A statement of what you want to be true isn't evidence. You also seem very confused about the scientific process. You can not assume everything that you can't 100% disprove is true or you would have to assume that almost everything is true. Discworld would be true for example.

There are a number of ways of setting up hypotheses to test. Amongst these probably the two most frequently used methods are 1) Observation/evidence based hypothesis. Something you have seen/found might suggest a particular cause. You then assume a null hypothesis (i.e. assume it isn't true) and try to prove that null hypothesis. If your results show that there is a significant statistical difference between what you would have expected as a result from a null hypothesis then you might assume that you were on to something, which will stimulate further investigation, and 2) The Hypothetico-deductive method where you propose all possible explanations and systematically remove the possibles, one at a time, until you are left with the most likely one.

Test for the presence of god any way you like and the null hypothesis is true. After millions of years of worshiping the sun, rocks and now mythical entities we still have zero evidence upon which to base further investigation. The most rational explanation is the there is nothing to investigate. If you can prove otherwise you will be very rich indeed.

BTW the only "fact" you mention is "Adam's Bridge" which is just a chain of Islands and not a bridge of any description. Nothing more. NASA have publically stated that it is a group of islands. Although David Icke believes that it was an ancient bridge between India and Sri Lanka so it must be true :lol:
 
And to save me time if you want any of the no doubt crackpot things you believe in debunking please go here first and do a search.

http://www.randi.org

He also offers a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate supernatural ability. Many have tried, all have been publically humiliated.

And to finish an atricle about astrology :lol:

Astrology Blunders in Nepal

We know that astrology is regarded in India and other nations in that area of the world — Afghanistan, Assam, Bhutan, Burma, Kashmir, Nepal, Pakistan — with great respect. Why, is hard to figure out. All important events are determined by official astrologers, and marriages are arranged between persons who are astrologically suited to one another, especially on high levels of society. Elections, holidays, travels, business deals, signing of documents — every major event is decided by the horoscope-casters.

This should not make us of the Western world in any way smug. On Wall Street, astrologers work out the likelihood of suitable mergers based upon the incorporation dates of the respective corporations, and the IPO date of a stock is considered along with the client's birth date — for compatibility — when stock purchases are being considered. We are perhaps not equally gullible about astrology, but we're getting there.

One of the astrologers to the royal house of Nepal, the Shah dynasty, has confessed that the recent massacre of the royal family in a hail of bullets was quite unforeseen by him and his colleagues. "No one expected it," Mangal Raj Joshi, admitted. "Heavenly planets control the situation on the ground and sometimes we are unable to explain them adequately" said Joshi, whose family has worked for more than 20 generations for the Nepalese kings. His failure — and the abject failure of astrology itself, in this catastrophic matter, has not affected his position, though. He continues as astrologer to the new monarch, King Gyanendra. His first official task for Gyanendra was to determine the most auspicious time for his crowning. We are not told if he ventured to see if flying bullets were in the new king's future.

Apparently there was a determination made by the court astrologers that king Birendra's son and heir, Dipendra, should not marry before he had attained the age of thirty-five. The royal family was warned that ignoring their star-woven fate would bring about the end of the Shah dynasty. Perhaps Prince Dipendra did marry secretly, since the Shah family is now just about out of existence. Dipendra himself has also died, and reports indicate that king Birendra holds onto his throne with difficulty.

Though the official view of the government of Nepal was that the shooting of the king and queen and eight other members of the royal family was "an accident," it is generally recognized by the rest of the world that Crown Prince Dipendra himself gunned down the victims with an automatic weapon after an argument over his choice of bride.

Astrologer Joshi confessed to the media that he had "lost" King Birendra's horoscope, a chart that according to the astrologer would have mapped out the dead king's life — and fate — in detail. The Himalayan kingdom of 22 million people is rife with poverty and political infighting, and sooth-sayers, star-gazers, and card-readers are depended upon to bring wisdom to the citizens and the officials who govern them. In my opinion, a little more common sense might be introduced somewhere along the way.
 
Wibble said:
I have exactly what it takes to discuss this matter, a mind unclouded by mysticism, fear or superstision.

You have not provided one iota of evidence to investigate. A statement of what you want to be true isn't evidence. You also seem very confused about the scientific process. You can not assume everything that you can't 100% disprove is true or you would have to assume that almost everything is true. Discworld would be true for example.

There are a number of ways of setting up hypotheses to test. Amongst these probably the two most frequently used methods are 1) Observation/evidence based hypothesis. Something you have seen/found might suggest a particular cause. You then assume a null hypothesis (i.e. assume it isn't true) and try to prove that null hypothesis. If your results show that there is a significant statistical difference between what you would have expected as a result from a null hypothesis then you might assume that you were on to something, which will stimulate further investigation, and 2) The Hypothetico-deductive method where you propose all possible explanations and systematically remove the possibles, one at a time, until you are left with the most likely one.

Test for the presence of god any way you like and the null hypothesis is true. After millions of years of worshiping the sun, rocks and now mythical entities we still have zero evidence upon which to base further investigation. The most rational explanation is the there is nothing to investigate. If you can prove otherwise you will be very rich indeed.

BTW the only "fact" you mention is "Adam's Bridge" which is just a chain of Islands and not a bridge of any description. Nothing more. NASA have publically stated that it is a group of islands. Although David Icke believes that it was an ancient bridge between India and Sri Lanka so it must be true :lol:

Lets not ding dong this anymore, i have given you a challenge, why not accept it instead of all this bollocks and gibberish talk!

You said Astrology is bollocks, i can prove it is exceptionally accurate. Even in your life. Ping me the details...if you believe in your hypothesis of tests!

Idol drinking milk - prove me that i am wrong, what data do you have that supports your claims that its mass hysteria when it was happening all over the world, even in the UK at the same time.

Common ;)
 
The King said:
Lets not ding dong this anymore, i have given you a challenge, why not accept it instead of all this bollocks and gibberish talk!

You said Astrology is bollocks, i can prove it is exceptionally accurate. Even in your life. Ping me the details...if you believe in your hypothesis of tests!

Idol drinking milk - prove me that i am wrong, what data do you have that supports your claims that its mass hysteria when it was happening all over the world, even in the UK at the same time.

Common ;)

Accept what challenge? Where is th evidence to analyse? It is insane to pick things you believe in (seemingly) at random and then "prove" them by saying they are true (theres no place like home, theres no place like home) and nthen claiming that it must be so because you can't 100% prove it aint so. You seem to think that the big bang theory is a joke despite there being lots of proof that it may be true yet you happily accept any crackpot theory that takes your fancy. By your muddle minded thinking the Big Bang must be true because you can't disprove it. Insanity.

Astrology has been scientificlly tested again and again and under conditions where cheating is prevented and blind tests are conducted and it has been shown to be a complete and utter failure at predicting anything.

I have had someone do my "chart" and it was either full of generalities (you like beer and football - no shit sherlock - since I was wearing a United shirt that was rather tight around the middle) or utterly wrong (you will marry 3 times - not looking good, you are scared of water - I was a SCUBA instructor at the time etc etc etc).

Idol drinking milk? :lol: You are either delusional or deluded as are all who believe such tosh. I'd love to see the proof :lol:

BTW what did you think of David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear?
 
Wibble said:
Accept what challenge? Where is th evidence to analyse? It is insane to pick things you believe in (seemingly) at random and then "prove" them by saying they are true (theres no place like home, theres no place like home) and nthen claiming that it must be so because you can't 100% prove it aint so. You seem to think that the big bang theory is a joke despite there being lots of proof that it may be true yet you happily accept any crackpot theory that takes your fancy. By your muddle minded thinking the Big Bang must be true because you can't disprove it. Insanity.

Astrology has been scientificlly tested again and again and under conditions where cheating is prevented and blind tests are conducted and it has been shown to be a complete and utter failure at predicting anything.

I have had someone do my "chart" and it was either full of generalities (you like beer and football - no shit sherlock - since I was wearing a United shirt that was rather tight around the middle) or utterly wrong (you will marry 3 times - not looking good, you are scared of water - I was a SCUBA instructor at the time etc etc etc).

Idol drinking milk? :lol: You are either delusional or deluded as are all who believe such tosh. I'd love to see the proof :lol:

BTW what did you think of David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear?

Wibbs, again you are wading away. I do not think the Big Bang may be wrong, science may have come up with it, but do they have a confirmed answer to what caused the Big Bang? In physics, an object will stay unaffected and motionless unless an external force is applied. So what was that force which created the Big Bang?

Where is the data that says, science has tested astrology? You keep saying this over and over, yet there is absolutely no data or proof of this from you. Yet, i am willing to prove this to you with data, if you would allow me to demonstrate. Afterall, you lose nothing. You have bollocks to suggest that astrology is fake. There is no credible data from you. But i do and am willing. So who is the failure here? ;) But i do agree that there are some idiotic buggers out there who pretend to do astrology and utter shit. It happens, but there are many who are so fecking accurate they would scare you.

There are loads or articles on the net abt the idol drinking milk, check them out. And i did it personally. Maybe you could ask your pals who may have know abt this. That would help wouldnt it?

Copperfield? I think he is in league with the devil :lol:
 
110802-NewZodiac.jpg