CAMPBELL34 VS. LIBERTINE :The War To Settle The Score...

One more post and this will be the leading thread in the Christianity Forums at 552. I think it is still alive, although Campbell34 hasn't provided a shred of viable evidence for an Omni-Max Sky Daddy.

 

Fat_Tony,

You write,

Referring to your post quoted above, in my opinion, you're just about 'on the mark.' Given this I will add that requesting proof in response to claims of proof is often wise, and is so, especially, here. I am stunned, however, at the lack cordiality in much of this thread.

Along the lines of the above post: This "faith" by cause of insight or realization that you refer to is 'the stuff' that many great inventions and discoveries are made of. I wonder if it is the case that contained in the Christian Bible, and other works, that there is vaild insight into physical, psychological and psychophysiological principles and phenomena that have yet to be objectively proven; my clear sense is that the answer is "yes." And I wonder if many of the renderings in the Chirstian Bible, and other works, are not 'colored' by emotional reaction related to realization, or experience, of the above mentioned "principles and phenomena?"

Certainly if any objective proof of conscious intelligence or intelligences being interfaced to human beings other than that of lifeforms that we have already commonly defined and that is/are akin 'God' in some of the respects that have been defined by humans, which I believe exists and eventually will be proven to be so, then it seems clear that it would be important for any theorist, as an example, who is working toward the end of providing objective proof of such an "interface" and related characteristics to be able to maintain proper focus, or possibly maintain what we refer to above as "faith," in order to manifest such work.

I believe that at all times it would behoove us all if we worked to 'build bridges' even as we debate or disagree.


Peace,

David


.

 

I could be a fork lift mechanic, and find blackbeard's treasure...

Does that mean I'm an archaelogist? No. Does it mean I found something? YES!

 

Colours,

You write,

to my writing,

I misspelled the name, it is CSICOP located at http://www.csicop.org/


Peace,

David


.

 

oooh i see . Have they tackled the issue of bible prophecies and artifacts?

 

Yes,


http://www.csicop.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?q=bible

I want to add, because of the context of this in this thread, that there is legitimate archaeological work that provides, has provided, elucidation on information and stories contained within the Christian Bible.
.

 

Yes, God did bless me with a loving father who presented a good example throughout my life.

 

ImFuzzyNutz,

You might think again before flaming this kid and making personal attacks of this nature. I happen to have had many disagreements with Campbell, but we have always been respectful. You, in essence, are using significant psychological violence against JDFU and others in this thread; I do not care if you are a Christain, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist or other this is uncalled for, inappropriate, and, I believe, grounds for a ban. Cease or I will contact the admin immediately.

David
Natural23

 

i agree, natural; these comments were inappropriate. sorry, fuzzy... rein in that tongue a bit eh?
insulting a person's family during a debate is bad form.
but, for fairness' sake, maybe jdfu should check out yomomma.com or something for suitable retorts....




peace,

 

WHOA................................

for real, campbell?
actually, scratch that. of course you're for real. well, okay... demons controlling libertine.
my mind has been boggled.
do demons also control me? do demons control all non-christians?

i have one question.
FREE WILL.

(ps. i started another thread regarding free will and one of your stories, i don't think you responded to it, though you may not have noticed... i think it's called "god's will versus free will")

so, we have free will to CHOOSE god, or to not choose god. if demons are controlling libertine, then lib's free will is zilch. if lib's words are demon's words, then what is lib? i really don't understand these weird mental backflips going on here; if demons are controlling libertine, then what chance does he have of salvation? does no one else notice how free will is essentially christianity's whore, used when the christian pleases and tossed aside when god's will sounds better? if everything libertine thinks, and his every action is a demon working, and in fact, your argument is not with libertine but with the demons themselves. as you said. and what the heck is libertine? just a bag of skin and bones? i thought christians believed that god gave us free will, and we always have the opportunity to find salvation. but if libertine (and maybe the rest of us nonbelievers!) have DEMONS in our heads, chattering away and deciding our every word and work, then it seems that the unsaved have very little chance of becoming otherwise.

i, for example, am not a christian. who writes these words, Sophia (me) or a group of inspired devils?

just as some weak, or just plain uninteresting, debater might shrug you off with "campbell's just crazy", i find this demon answer of yours equally as disrespectful and narrow-minded. why have a debate at all if you have no opportunity to talk to libertine, but only continually bash your head against his wall of devils?

 

If I ever have to go to court for murder, I am going to plead Christian.

Apparantly you can be mentally unstable if you are labled this way.

 

have you provided a shred of evidence he doesn't exist?



you can't prove a universal negative, but why should the burden of proof be on the christians, why isn't it on the athiests.....


not provable either way, not concretly provable by any means......


come on man, I know you are smarter than that, so was this just goading?

 

You are about 1,000 threads behind. I am the skeptic. The antithesis of "belief". The burden of proof is on the claimant (i.e. the theist). Now, personally, I almost think you are just joking bringing this same appeal to ignorance as an argument.

Lack of evidence is not evidence for the opposing view. I don't have to PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE of the NON-EXISTENCE of something, techie. You, of all people, ought to know better.

I've already explained why. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Theism is a claim. Just as if I had said, "Hey there's an invisible, intangible fairy in my asshole who makes it rain. Whenever it rains, there's the evidence!" Atheism is the absence of a belief in "God". Read the Atheism FAQ here or check out this site www.atheists.org (What It Is).

You must be drinking, techie. You are SHADES more intelligent than to try to use a fallacious argument as "You can't prove there is no God".

 

Again, I would like to know how many people, who are not Christian, have gone over to this supposed site and examined it themselves. You would say it is only Christians researching the site, but how many non-Christian's are eager to discover evidence for the Bible?

 

Thanks, JDFU, you summed it up nicely.

EAGERNESS TO DISCOVER EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE-- the whole agenda.

However, most scientists are just eager find out whether or not something is true, with no stake in propaganda. They don't say "Hey, let's go PROVE this." Some may, but true science, says "Here's an idea, let's test it to see if it is true or not."

 

But he didn't find a treasure. He thinks he touched an ancient chariot wheel. I doubt this forklift driver is educated enough in anthropology and archeology to confirm that it was in fact a chariot wheel from the egyptian army from the exact era of the red sea crossing, and that there was, in fact, an army buried under there.

What I think is so funny is that this crap is the kind of "proof" you christians will accept for christianity, but you'll still debate the validity of evolution!

 

It is very interesting to see many of the folks, here, argue for limitations that are really just emotionally driven assumptions. Have we even spent the time, fo example, to look closely at the true nature of words like 'objective,' 'subjective' and 'God.' I believe that the immediate answer, for many here, to what I ask would be to laugh at this question and then say of course we have, "these things are obvious;" yet Libertine actually uses the word "God," as an example, and we take it for granted that he can use this word. How, how can he use this word; what does the word mean ? We consider the word "objective," as another example; is it possible for someone to have an unshared, unagreed upon, view that is "objective" or is "objective" just a concept relating to agreement between people about their viewpoints. Now we can use the concept of experiment and agreement about the results as a diversion from the question asked because this is often a clearly substantial example of agreement between people where those agreeing appear to have a consensus on "strong information" to agree upon; but, for example, what about many of the difficult areas regarding experiment or the making of a hypothesis or that relate to revision of a theory ? Maybe we should be very cautious about making conclusions and going "wild with our emotions" but instead use review of these emotions and the related questions at hand to evolve our minds with, as I view it, the tendency toward the benefit of clearer view and better and more productive relations with those around us. Now if this sounds like it is 'off point' or a 'copout' I suggest that one thinks again about this because this directly affects how we ask and answer questions, how we communicate and how good our results as a group will be.


Assessment so far:

Libertine: Solid, clearly stated, rational questions that, rightfully, place apparently monumental burden of proof upon Campbell. An associated, nearly stated and often implied, assumption that God in fact does not exist; lack of purity in form of stated conclusions, could be stated simply and repeatedly as "I see no evidence that substantially supports your claims" without unnecessary artifact.

Campbell: Complex argument supporting clearly extremely difficult to prove claims that, ultimately, does not provide conclusive proof of those claims. Attempts to generate such complex argument would benefit by initial presentation of a detailed (and extensive) outline.


Believe it or not maybe we should actually consider the reality, the concept, that extraordinary claims are sometimes actually proven. And here, again, maybe we should start, again, with the definition of words like "objective," "subjective" and "God." And, also, maybe we should have greater regard, in a healthy and balanced manner, for the apparent reality that people do sometimes have internal viewpoints, often expressed in the langauges of the brain which do not only include spoken/written langauges, that are correct, in whole or in part, in and of having the capacity for substanitail and significant "'external' validity" that are as of yet unforseen by many others.


Peace,

David


.

 

I posted you a link earlier in this thread describing nearly 5000 dives that have been done in the red sea for archeological purposes.

The Institute of Nautical Archeology has been all over the sea floor escavating shipwrecks. Archeologists started escavating the area in 1969 and the INA did thousands of dives starting 1994.

 

Okay Libertine, can you dispute this?

The Duckbill Platypus
​

The explorer who first saw a hide of the duckbill platypus thought that it was composed of the hides of several different animals sewn together as a joke. Later, when a preserved specimen was brought to him for dissection, he finally declared it outrageous, but genuine!

The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features: 1

× It is a fur­bearing mammal.

× It lays eggs, yet suckles its young.

× It has a duck­like bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive worm finding radar.

× Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry.

× It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear.

× The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature.

× The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as different as you can get from the platypus.

​

Can you imagine what a pre-platypus might have looked like? Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from a variety of completely different animals.