Evidence of God

[Prometheus]

Can I see a source for such a crazy statement. Reed boats? Reed is not strong enough at all to make it all the way across the Atlantic.

http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html
That is what we in the buisines call a "bitch slap".

Get rid of this source. Not only do you use it for everything, but every paper written is for the Mormon religion. Nothing goes against it. Seems pretty biased to me. This doesn't help: the president of the religious studies group is a devout Mormon believer. He's in like 500 groups that are all Mormon. Who would go to a Mormon religious school to disprove the Mormon religion? Find a new source for the sake of objectivity. Please respect this opinion on your source in understanding that it is not objective.

As I've said before, I admot that this source in not totally objective. If you want to attack it however, don't rely on the lazy attack of on face objectivity, look at thier findings and attack them. Objective or no, they raise good points that cannot be totally dismissed. And as I have said before. BYU is ranked 25'th in the nation, you can't just discount thier studies. Just because no one else is in terested in these avanues of research, dosent discount them.

[James]

I thought they did?

They do. It's not the living, it's whether they will live side by side after the living part's over.

[Jack]

After death you're on your own. I'll be providing the raw materials for a tree, or maybe a chipmunk. I like chipmunks.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

That is what we in the buisines call a "bitch slap".

This site was a load of crap.

There is NO EVIDENCE at all that the Egyptians crossed the Atlantic. They even said it themselves:

"What did the Ra Expeditions prove? Did it actually prove that the Egyptians or some other group of travelers with reed boats reached the Americas in ancient times? Of course not."

The first boat the modern reed boat builders made was abandoned during the trip across the Atlantic.

The second boat was said to have been much more improved, so for all we know, they added modern day techniques the Egyptians didn't know, and they made it across in 57 days. That boat is way too small to hold enough food for 57 for a boat-load of people, anyways.

This is what I like to call a "punch in the face."

As I've said before, I admot that this source in not totally objective. If you want to attack it however, don't rely on the lazy attack of on face objectivity, look at thier findings and attack them. Objective or no, they raise good points that cannot be totally dismissed. And as I have said before. BYU is ranked 25'th in the nation, you can't just discount thier studies. Just because no one else is in terested in these avanues of research, dosent discount them.

Thanks for admitting this. There's over 50 some papers that are extremely long. I read about 5 and almost fell asleep because I was reading the same information over and over again. I'm not out to read a novel. 25th in the nation for what? I'm not discounting their studies, either. I'm sure they have fine evidence. It's just the other side has more evidence. The only person who is willing to go to a college for strictly Mormon research is a Mormon.

[Prometheus]

This site was a load of crap.

There is NO EVIDENCE at all that the Egyptians crossed the Atlantic. They even said it themselves:

"What did the Ra Expeditions prove? Did it actually prove that the Egyptians or some other group of travelers with reed boats reached the Americas in ancient times? Of course not."

The first boat the modern reed boat builders made was abandoned during the trip across the Atlantic.

The second boat was said to have been much more improved, so for all we know, they added modern day techniques the Egyptians didn't know, and they made it across in 57 days. That boat is way too small to hold enough food for 57 for a boat-load of people, anyways.

You can gripe about it al you want, but a boat was built from reeds that crossed the atlantic. If that is possible, then doing it in a wooden boat would be easy in comparison. Of course you, in your typical arrogance, denyed the possibility of either. And yet, it is obvious that both are possible. And Nephi claims he had directions from god on how to build and navigate his boat. Neither the Ra progect or the Mayflower had that on thier side, and they made it acrossed just fine.

Of course it dosen't "prove" anything. I never implied that it did. What it does prove, is that your scorn and allegations of impossibility were ignorant, unfounded and just plain ascinine.

This is what I like to call a "punch in the face."

Have it your way, I submit it to the assembley to decide who has supported thier statements, and who has just thrown up knee-jerk accusations of impossibility.

It's just the other side has more evidence.

Evidance that what? Historical evidance is a tricky buisiness, especially a historical dis-proof.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

You can gripe about it al you want, but a boat was built from reeds that crossed the atlantic. If that is possible, then doing it in a wooden boat would be easy in comparison. Of course you, in your typical arrogance, denyed the possibility of either. And yet, it is obvious that both are possible. And Nephi claims he had directions from god on how to build and navigate his boat. Neither the Ra progect or the Mayflower had that on thier side, and they made it acrossed just fine.

Well the Ra project was 2000 years later and the Mayflower was 1600 years later. I can't believe they made it across without the help of God. And no, the Ra boat was abandoned.

Of course it dosen't "prove" anything. I never implied that it did. What it does prove, is that your scorn and allegations of impossibility were ignorant, unfounded and just plain ascinine.

Have it your way, I submit it to the assembley to decide who has supported thier statements, and who has just thrown up knee-jerk accusations of impossibility.

Read my posts. I never said it was impossible, I just said they didn't do it. The only reason I think they didn't do it is because the chances aren't in their favor, and since I don't believe in Mormonism, or God for that matter, I can't say that "God guided them."

Evidance that what? Historical evidance is a tricky buisiness, especially a historical dis-proof.

It is indeed, especially historical proofs.

[Flip Jackson]

Sorry to try to bring this to light again, but very few of the atheists that think theists are less intelligent or don't think for themselves, have not commented on any of this.

All I want, is for equal footing in debates without my religious beliefs brought up unless I introduce them. I try to debate in other areas, but any philosophy or moral I hold is often ridiculed because it came from a person who believes in a religion.

I want theists to be allowed to have opinions that aren't discounted because they believe. Or I want to know why my argument of physical evidence is invalid. I only provide the evidence to show that there is sometimes more to belief than bling faith.

Either admit that some theists have reason for their beliefs and can debate and think for themselves, or show me where my logic has failed in this thread. One or the other needs to be done.

I don't aim this at all atheists, but only those who think theists are less intelligent or don't think about their beliefs.

[Starboy]

Flip, you appear to be calling all atheists out on this last post, so I will respond. I have a hard time taking theists seriously not because they are capable of thinking rationally and sanely but because they are not only capable of thinking irrationally and insanely but do so on a regular basis and see nothing wrong with it when it is pointed out to them repeatedly. It is not the good things that a person does that condemn them.

Starboy

[IGX]

It seems that Flip is applying for martyrdom, prematurely. He feels persecuted like many Mormons did before Brigham Young ordered the massacre of 120 (men, women & children) protestants passing through Mormon territory in 1857.

[Flip Jackson]

Starboy, I am only trying to call out the atheists that refuse to accept that theists can think and debate as well, and not all theists are irrational. I admit that many are. But many atheists are irrational, too. I think sometimes you clump every theist into a group of fools. I just want it known that not every theist is a fool.

Atheists have repeatedly asked for evidence of my supposedly irrational ideas, so I gave scientific, physical evidence that supports what I believe. All I ask is that, even if you disagree with my take, to accept that some theists are rational and don't follow their religions blindly.

IGX, for someone who is so objective, you seem to have a particular dislike for Mormons. Why is that? In fact, I think you tried to use the title Mormon as an insult. I don't think that will have the effect you want. Most of the members of my church are more than happy to be labeled Mormons.

[Starboy]

Starboy, I am only trying to call out the atheists that refuse to accept that theists can think and debate as well, and not all theists are irrational. I admit that many are. But many atheists are irrational, too. I think sometimes you clump every theist into a group of fools. I just want it known that not every theist is a fool.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. All theists are supernaturalists. It is not rational to be a supernaturalist. That is not how we understand reality in this day and age. But if a person simply had supernatural beliefs and didn't act on them, didn't spend time on them, didn't devote resources to those beliefs then I would say it would be mostly harmless. However it moves from the eccentric column into the insane column when the person acts as if supernaturalism was anything other than a hope. For people that see giant invisible rabbits and hold conversation with them there is no doubt the person is insane, however when it is Jesus or [place your supernatural construct here] then somehow that is supposed to be a-okay. To hold such beliefs and practice and act on them when they are no different then other behaviors that even you would recognize as insane is certainly not rational and it is insane or at least dishonest. And most of the theists on the planet would qualify, including you based on what you have posted in the past.

Starboy

[IGX]

First, to accept "bogeyman type concepts" as real is irrational. It is strictly based on feelings, emotions, and rationalizations in an effort to somehow mentally create that which does not and could not ever exist. When rational thought is applied the "bogeyman" and "god" disappear.

My dislike of religions is based on objective review of their teachings and motives. I don't like or agree with force backed government regulations or main stream medicine's approach to "health", either. Knowing the facts regarding "external authorities" leads to the logical conclusion that "they" cause the problems which they claim to attempt to solve.

Now, the point of my mentioning Brigham Young's cowardly criminal act of ordering the murder of innocent women, children, and men was to illustrate that following the teachings of such a man is extremely naive, gullible, and irrational. Do you support the actions of Brigham Young?