2 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

The central Christian claims (a particular first-century man was raised from the dead, God is the ground of being, etc.) are historical and metaphysical.

Laboratory science is not the right tool for them any more than it is the right tool for determining whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon or whether moral facts exist.

You're only kept alive based on rules that have their basis in 'stories from a book'.
As an old git, you are almost perfectly useless, so it would be 'logical' to kill you but we don't mainly cos of rules and commandments 'from a book'.

I'm not old and your post contains excuses for the lack of proof of god. In India there are thousands of gods.

You can't even define god.

This would be interesting if you had even the slightest idea about the beliefs (Hinduism and Buddhism) that you think you have. For a start Buddhism is not a religion. I know you will find that hard to understand but for it to be a religion there has to be the belief in a God; Buddhism does not have that.

2 minutes ago, novanova said:

F. me, you really are as thick as a brick. Try to understand the following simple English:

It is fact that "proving a negative" (ie, non-existence) has been discarded - valueless.

I wrote the following earlier. Make an effort to understand it:

============================

It's been many years since "prove a not" (in this case, prove that god does not exist) has been shown to be silly. Sound thinkers go for "prove so-and-so is the case", and if no one can, the matter either on stand-by awaiting more facts (say, quantum mechanics or dark matter) or put in the bin (say, astrology or reincarnation).

Here is why "prove there is no god" is silly.

"Prove that pink elephants exist"...the means by which that can done is simple - produce one for inspection.

"Prove that pink elephants do not exist" cannot be done - true believers will tell us that we need to look in caves, underwater, on a planet revolving around Alpha Centauri etc.

============================

I repeat, every time you waffle away about "proof", you expose your ignorance.

And every time you reply, you expose more of yours. This whole argument is you saying there isn't a God and my saying there is. I can't prove with any more evidence than life itself. I know exactly what proving a negative means, but you're missing my points here, which is some arguing for me to prove there is a God. I don't need to prove anything as it's what I believe, as well as most others on this earth. Look at what Tourist has posted, along with my following replies.

I believe what I believe and you do the same. Now let us know your previous usernames, and we'll all see why you behave this same way.

Again, try not to assume, as it makes you look foolish with every reply. And your "waffling" has been an ongoing thing through many topics, so practice what you're trying to preach, as preaching to those who are more knowledgeable about things and posting things adults have already known decades ago is rather, as you say, silly.

Edited Saturday at 07:30 AM2 days by fredwiggy

3 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

Laboratory science is not the right tool for them any more than it is the right tool for determining whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon, whether moral facts exist, or whether your mrs was a whore before she married you.

So now you are down in the gutter. Obviously got no facts to present to prove your god theory.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

And every time you reply, you expose more of yours. This whole argument is you saying there isn't a God and my saying there is. I can't prove with any more evidence than life itself. I know exactly what proving a negative means, but you're missing my points here, which is some arguing for me to prove there is a God. I don't need to prove anything as it's what I believe, as well as most others on this earth. Look at what Tourist has posted, along with my following replies.

Okay, put it in the bin, awaiting more evidence, and as I've mentioned many times, I believe what I believe and you do the same. Now let us know your previous usernames, and we'll all see why you behave this same way.

Again, try not to assume, as it makes you look foolish with every reply. And your "waffling" has been an ongoing thing through many topics, so practice what you're trying to preach, as preaching to those who are more knowledgeable about things and posting things adults have already known decades ago is rather, as you say, silly.

Drug companies can't sell drugs without proof they offer benefits and are low risk.

Religious wars have killed millions with no proof god exists.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

So now you are down in the gutter. Obviously got no facts to present to prove your god theory.

The fact that I an here to teach you the way and the life are facts enough for me.

I can't prove my wifi 'theory' to my dog either but it doesn't mean wifi doesn't exist.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

And every time you reply, you expose more of yours. This whole argument is you saying there isn't a God and my saying there is. I can't prove with any more evidence than life itself. I know exactly what proving a negative means, but you're missing my points here, which is some arguing for me to prove there is a God. I don't need to prove anything as it's what I believe, as well as most others on this earth. Look at what Tourist has posted, along with my following replies.

Okay, put it in the bin, awaiting more evidence, and as I've mentioned many times, I believe what I believe and you do the same. Now let us know your previous usernames, and we'll all see why you behave this same way.

Again, try not to assume, as it makes you look foolish with every reply. And your "waffling" has been an ongoing thing through many topics, so practice what you're trying to preach, as preaching to those who are more knowledgeable about things and posting things adults have already known decades ago is rather, as you say, silly.

Every time you use the word "proof", you demonstrate that you don't understand even the kindergarten-level basics of informed debate.

45 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

Atheism is a low-resolution cope for people who want the moral capital of Christendom without the inconvenient parts of the package.

Why shouldn't someone just kill you?
You're old and don't contribute anything after all.
Why not just kill all the old <deleted> who've nothing to offer but sour takes?

Why not just kill the deluded cultists?

You have not responded to anything.

Just now, Tourist2 said:

The fact that I an here to teach you the way and the life are facts enough for me.

I can't prove my wifi 'theory' to my dog either but it doesn't mean wifi doesn't exist.

I can proof wifi exists cause we can all use it. I can proof the sun exists. We can all see it.

You god botherers have nothing. A book full of fake stories. Kind of sad adults believe it.

Edited Saturday at 07:34 AM2 days by khaosokman

46 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Prove God doesn't exist or your and others arguments fall by the wayside. And read above.

There is no proof of nonexistence. You, however, claim there is a god, OK, which one and why?

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

Drug companies can't sell drugs without proof they offer benefits and are low risk.

Booster time for the boomer!

1 minute ago, khaosokman said:

Religious wars have killed millions with no proof god exists.

Religious wars and persecutions have killed millions. Fact.

BUT it does not follow that God does not exist, any more than the body count of the French Revolutionary Terror proves the non-existence of liberty, or the failures of democracy prove that people do not have rights.

People kill for power, land, status, revenge, and ideology.

Religion is one ideology among many.

Treating it as uniquely disqualifying while ignoring the far larger body counts under explicitly anti-religious regimes is selective outrage.

The actual scoreboard:

Explicitly atheist and materialist regimes in the 20th century (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty, etc.) produced democide on a scale that dwarfs the cumulative death toll of religious wars across centuries.

Scholarly estimates of aethesit communist democide alone routinely exceed 100 million.

These regimes did not kill “in spite of” their atheism; they killed while systematically enforcing it, destroying churches, mosques, and temples, and teaching that man is nothing but matter in motion.

Many so-called “religious wars” were only partly religious.

“No proof God exists”

This clause is doing no logical work. The absence of a laboratory proof for God does not make religious violence uniquely irrational, nor does it make atheist violence more rational.

People do not require metaphysical certainty before they fight; they require an organizing story that justifies the use of force.

Both religious and anti-religious stories have supplied that function.

The question of whether God exists is independent of how many people have been killed while waving religious flags.

If your argument is simply “religion has been used to justify atrocities, therefore we should reject it,” consistency requires the same standard for every ideology with a high body count.

Applying the standard only to theism is not reason.

It is motivated special pleading - likely through the fear of God.

3 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

I can proof wifi exists cause we can all use it. I can proof the sun exists. We van all see it.

You god botherers have nothing. A book full of fake stories. Kind of sad adults believe it.

Kind of sad you're spending your day trying to refute it too I guess

1 minute ago, cjinchiangrai said:

There is no proof of nonexistence. You, however, claim there is a god

No metaphysical position about ultimate reality comes with laboratory-style proof.

That includes naturalism - as well as your 'biG bAnG' and 'eVolUtiOn' theories.

4 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

Booster time for the boomer!

Religious wars and persecutions have killed millions. Fact.

BUT it does not follow that God does not exist, any more than the body count of the French Revolutionary Terror proves the non-existence of liberty, or the failures of democracy prove that people do not have rights.

People kill for power, land, status, revenge, and ideology.

Religion is one ideology among many.

Treating it as uniquely disqualifying while ignoring the far larger body counts under explicitly anti-religious regimes is selective outrage.

The actual scoreboard:

Explicitly atheist and materialist regimes in the 20th century (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty, etc.) produced democide on a scale that dwarfs the cumulative death toll of religious wars across centuries.

Scholarly estimates of aethesit communist democide alone routinely exceed 100 million.

These regimes did not kill “in spite of” their atheism; they killed while systematically enforcing it, destroying churches, mosques, and temples, and teaching that man is nothing but matter in motion.

Many so-called “religious wars” were only partly religious.

“No proof God exists”

This clause is doing no logical work. The absence of a laboratory proof for God does not make religious violence uniquely irrational, nor does it make atheist violence more rational.

People do not require metaphysical certainty before they fight; they require an organizing story that justifies the use of force.

Both religious and anti-religious stories have supplied that function.

The question of whether God exists is independent of how many people have been killed while waving religious flags.

If your argument is simply “religion has been used to justify atrocities, therefore we should reject it,” consistency requires the same standard for every ideology with a high body count.

Applying the standard only to theism is not reason.

It is motivated special pleading - likely through the fear of God.

Which god is this?

1 minute ago, Tourist2 said:

Kind of sad you're spending your day trying to refute it too I guess

No metaphysical position about ultimate reality comes with laboratory-style proof.

That includes naturalism - as well as your 'biG bAnG' and 'eVolUtiOn' theories.

Define your god then we can pick it apart

1 minute ago, novanova said:

Every time you use the word "proof", you demonstrate that you don't understand even the kindergarten-level basics of informed debate.

And every time you come back with a nitwitted response, once again assuming what I know or don't know. They way you interact in this forum shows just how ignorant a supposed adult can be, and in 30+ years of studying psychology, you fit right in with one definite mental illness. This is not debating with you.

This topic is believers of the world make up their minds. You still can't conceive of what this means. To each their own. I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I stated my beliefs, and others have stated theirs. There isn't room for trying to prove the other wrong as there isn't any evidence for either side besides what I noted. Life itself. That you can't fathom the universe had a creator is on you and your thinking. The majority thinks otherwise.

Now go look at what Tourist said about being an atheist and what I followed with, if you can comprehend the written word, and not in your way of thinking but rationally. Don't bother replying again as it's the same BS I've seen for years from ill informed trolls. Around and around you go, lost in your own ignorance.

Edited Saturday at 07:46 AM2 days by fredwiggy

17 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Obviously got no facts to present to prove your god theory.

Got no facts to prove your Mo wasn't a Ho theory either!

2 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

Got no facts to prove your Mo wasn't a Ho theory either!

You sound like a Chang drinker.

13 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

There is no proof of nonexistence. You, however, claim there is a god, OK, which one and why?

That would be repeating myself, along with all the other many believers on this site and the billions of other believers who believe in the one true God. You can look it up, but you won't as someone told you that God doesn't exist, and like the few others here, you believed them.

There is no one true god

• Judaism: God is Yahweh, the single, incorporeal, indivisible Creator who entered into a covenant with the House of Israel.

• Christianity: God is the Triune God (the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), revealed supreme through Jesus Christ.

• Islam: God is Allah, absolute, strictly singular (concept of Tawhid), without partners, equals, or offspring, as revealed through the Prophet Muhammad.

25 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

That would be repeating myself, along with all the other many believers on this site and the billions of other believers who believe in the one true God. You can look it up, but you won't as someone told you that God doesn't exist, and like the few others here, you believed them.

High-level summary of Vox Day’s Probability Zero (2026):

Probability Zero:
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution by Natural Selection is Vox Day’s book-length mathematical critique of neo-Darwinism (the modern synthesis of random mutation + natural selection) and related neutral-theory models.

Core claim:
Using standard population-genetics math and empirical fixation-rate data, the genetic differences observed between humans and chimpanzees (and by extension other mammalian divergences) cannot be produced by unguided evolutionary processes in the time available since their putative last common ancestor (roughly 6–9 million years).Key argument (MITTENS framework)

• Beneficial (or even neutral) mutations fix in populations at a limited maximum rate. The fastest empirically observed rates (drawn largely from long-term bacterial experiments such as Lenski’s) are on the order of one fixation every ~1,400–1,600 generations.

• The number of fixed genetic differences required to explain the human–chimp genomic gap is in the tens to hundreds of millions of base pairs (updated upward with more recent whole-genome data showing larger divergence than the old “1%” figure).

• Available generations in the relevant timeframe fall far short of what would be needed. The shortfall is measured in multiple orders of magnitude.

• Parallel fixation, genetic drift, and other proposed work-arounds are argued to be insufficient once population-size limits, interference between selected sites, and realistic selection coefficients are taken into account.

• The resulting probability is described as effectively zero (or “probability zero”)—far beyond conventional scientific thresholds of impossibility (e.g., many sigma below particle-physics discovery standards). Day terms extreme improbability factors of this scale a “Darwillion.
  The book focuses tightly on the quantitative throughput limits of adaptive and neutral substitution rather than on fossils, comparative anatomy, or origin-of-life questions. It treats neo-Darwinian evolution as a search process and claims the search is mathematically incapable of covering the observed genetic distance in the available time. Later editions incorporate newer genomic mappings that increase the size of the gap and therefore strengthen the calculated shortfall.In short, it is presented as a formal, arithmetic challenge to the sufficiency of unguided mutation and selection, concluding that the standard evolutionary mechanism is not merely improbable but mathematically ruled out for the human–chimp (and similar) transitions.
  
  Men who've decamped to Thailand for cheap price and pussy are NOT the best candidates for Christianity - they are often uncivilised..
  You've tried though (which is the duty of a civilised man) so no blood on your hands!

27 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

And every time you come back with a nitwitted response, once again assuming what I know or don't know. They way you interact in this forum shows just how ignorant a supposed adult can be, and in 30+ years of studying psychology, you fit right in with one definite mental illness. This is not debating with you.

This topic is believers of the world make up their minds. You still can't conceive of what this means. To each their own. I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I stated my beliefs, and others have stated theirs. There isn't room for trying to prove the other wrong as there isn't any evidence for either side besides what I noted. Life itself. That you can't fathom the universe had a creator is on you and your thinking. The majority thinks otherwise.

Now go look at what Tourist said about being an atheist and what I followed with, if you can comprehend the written word, and not in your way of thinking but rationally. Don't bother replying again as it's the same BS I've seen for years from ill informed trolls. Around and around you go, lost in your own ignorance.

This topic is believers of the world make up their minds.

Make up their minds on what basis?

• Putting forward a conjecture, accumulating and reviewing measurements and evidence, followed an informed discussion of the merits of resulting positions, always awaiting new information so as to update one's stance as the facts dictate (this is called science)

• When I was two, I was told there was a Santa Claus and a god. When I was six, I was told there was no Santa Claus, so I discarded that belief. I was not told that there was no god, therefore there is a god (this called Fred Wiggy at work).

Poor Fred... he lacks the ability to question and review the fact-free gibberish he was fed when he was small.

Bertrand Russell: Wisdom: What an Archbishop was told when he was two

1 hour ago, Alpha84 said:

After 8 pages of this stuff, I only have two questions so far that I can't seem to answer:

1 - Who is winning the battle of the bickerers?

2 - Which God created Nana, Cowboy, and Soi 6?

With regard to Nana and Soi Cowboy it was a very benevolent God, however a God who has been fairly absent for the past 7 years.

4 minutes ago, novanova said:

This topic is believers of the world make up their minds.

Make up their minds on what basis?

• Putting forward a conjecture, accumulating and reviewing measurements and evidence, followed an informed discussion of the merits of resulting positions, always awaiting new information so as to update one's stance as the facts dictate (this is called science)

• When I was two, I was told there was a Santa Claus and a god. When I was six, I was told there was no Santa Claus, so I discarded that belief. I was not told that there was no god, therefore there is a god (this called Fred Wiggy at work).

Poor Fred... he lacks the ability to question and review the fact-free gibberish he was fed when he was small.

Bertrand Russell: Wisdom: What an Archbishop was told when he was two

Again, you can't reply without yet another assumption. Poor nova, he can't tell when he's been made a fool of, shown his lack of comprehension skills, thinking his childlike psychology overrides one who's done his studying long before he knew the word, and still isn't understanding the topic isn't about trying to prove others wrong but what one believes, and make up your minds. Which most adults already have decades before they entered this forum. Some of us don't need to add to or adjust our thinking, as we've made up our minds long ago and aren't open to "modern brainwashing".

Sadly, some had parents who were also atheists, or who forced religion by abuse down their children's throats, which had them rebel, instilling a hatred towards God for no other reason than anger against those same caretakers who were wrong.

Edited Saturday at 08:33 AM2 days by fredwiggy

11 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Again, you can't reply without yet another assumption. Poor nova, he can't tell when he's been made a fool of, shown his lack of comprehension skills, thinking his childlike psychology overrides one who's done his studying long before he knew the word, and still isn't understanding the topic isn't about trying to prove others wrong but what one believes, and make up your minds. Which most adults already have decades before they entered this forum. Some of us don't need to add to or adjust our thinking, as we've made up our minds long ago and aren't open to "modern brainwashing".

Sadly, some had parents who were also atheists, or who forced religion by abuse down their children's throats, which had them rebel, instilling a hatred towards God for no other reason than anger against those same caretakers who were wrong.

...isn't about trying to prove others wrong but what one believes...

I repeat - what counts is the basis for a belief, not the belief itself.

Suppose I say, "I believe there are aliens living at the centre of Europa".

For as long as I have zero evidence for that, I have to be regarded as a nutcase. It is only the fact that religion has been poisoning people's minds for millennia that prevents religious people (like you) being regarded as nutcases. Such is the power of brainwashing. You are a victim.

https://russell.humanities.mcmaster.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/11-69.pdf

39 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

High-level summary of Vox Day’s Probability Zero (2026):

Probability Zero:
The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution by Natural Selection is Vox Day’s book-length mathematical critique of neo-Darwinism (the modern synthesis of random mutation + natural selection) and related neutral-theory models.

Core claim:
Using standard population-genetics math and empirical fixation-rate data, the genetic differences observed between humans and chimpanzees (and by extension other mammalian divergences) cannot be produced by unguided evolutionary processes in the time available since their putative last common ancestor (roughly 6–9 million years).Key argument (MITTENS framework)

• Beneficial (or even neutral) mutations fix in populations at a limited maximum rate. The fastest empirically observed rates (drawn largely from long-term bacterial experiments such as Lenski’s) are on the order of one fixation every ~1,400–1,600 generations.

• The number of fixed genetic differences required to explain the human–chimp genomic gap is in the tens to hundreds of millions of base pairs (updated upward with more recent whole-genome data showing larger divergence than the old “1%” figure).

• Available generations in the relevant timeframe fall far short of what would be needed. The shortfall is measured in multiple orders of magnitude.

• Parallel fixation, genetic drift, and other proposed work-arounds are argued to be insufficient once population-size limits, interference between selected sites, and realistic selection coefficients are taken into account.

• The resulting probability is described as effectively zero (or “probability zero”)—far beyond conventional scientific thresholds of impossibility (e.g., many sigma below particle-physics discovery standards). Day terms extreme improbability factors of this scale a “Darwillion.
  The book focuses tightly on the quantitative throughput limits of adaptive and neutral substitution rather than on fossils, comparative anatomy, or origin-of-life questions. It treats neo-Darwinian evolution as a search process and claims the search is mathematically incapable of covering the observed genetic distance in the available time. Later editions incorporate newer genomic mappings that increase the size of the gap and therefore strengthen the calculated shortfall.In short, it is presented as a formal, arithmetic challenge to the sufficiency of unguided mutation and selection, concluding that the standard evolutionary mechanism is not merely improbable but mathematically ruled out for the human–chimp (and similar) transitions.
  
  Men who've decamped to Thailand for cheap price and pussy are NOT the best candidates for Christianity - they are often uncivilised..
  You've tried though (which is the duty of a civilised man) so no blood on your hands!

Humans never evolved from chimps.

No one is going to believe this, but Fred Wiggy wrote this today, in a different forum:

...evil is created at home, and there's no way of telling what this man's parents taught him, and their parents taught them. Visit Thailand and have a good time and leave your insanity back home, but that doesn't seem to happen with some.

I congratulate Fred - he has described how and why religion is alive today. Let's hope the parental brainwashing dies out and the insanity of religion ends.

As has been said many times, religions are the opium of the people. Belief systems keep whole populations pliant and controllable. The simple reality is that none of us knows if any form of awareness awaits us after death.

45 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

A little outdated there............Biblical and Historical Background

• Old Testament Sacrifices: Early Hebrew scripture detailed extensive animal sacrifices (such as lambs and goats) where blood was manipulated on altars to signify atonement and the sacredness of life.

• The Crucifixion: In Christian belief, Jesus Christ serves as the ultimate, final sacrifice, replacing animal slaughter by shedding his blood on the cross to forgive human sin.

Core Rituals and Symbolism

• The Eucharist (Communion): Christians regularly partake in bread and wine representing the body and blood of Jesus.

• Symbolism vs. Literalism: Mainstream denominations view the Eucharist as a memorial or spiritual communion. Catholics and some Orthodox Christians teach Transubstantiation, where the elements sacramentally become Christ's actual flesh and blood, but explicitly reject the notion of physical cannibalism or magic.

• Historical Penance: Certain fringe or historical ascetic practices, such as self-flagellation by specific groups, involved drawing blood as a form of physical mortification, but these are not defining or required elements of mainstream Christian practice.

None of this doctrinal blather constitutes any evidence of reality.

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

They actually weren't fighting over temples per se but land and offshore claims for energy. Thailand helped Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge went crazy and many stayed here in Thailand and were supposed to go back across the border, and the land has been a challenge since France was involved since 1904.

Regardless, hardly peace loving.

1 hour ago, Tourist2 said:

Kind of sad you're spending your day trying to refute it too I guess

No metaphysical position about ultimate reality comes with laboratory-style proof.

That includes naturalism - as well as your 'biG bAnG' and 'eVolUtiOn' theories.

Still no evidence to support your beliefs.