http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A :@@:

:banana:

LOL! That would be a great skit for saturday night live! The scary part is that guy is serious.

That guy's presentation speaks more to Natural Selection then it does to "Intelligent design". This guy in the video is making the false assumption that the banana just appeared one day in it's current form.

Haha, is that guy for real? I mean seriously?

Way to steal that guys comment there Dharma, unless of course that was you that made that comment, heh.

A rebuttal from You Tube. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&mode=related&search=

A rebuttal from You Tube. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&mode=related&search=
Nice.

Now how can you explain the fact that Kirk Cameron agrees with it? If Kirk Cameron agrees...it must be true right?

I see nothing in the U Tube rebuttal that indicates that God does not exist.

I see nothing in the U Tube rebuttal that indicates that God does not exist.


I think it was to simly rebut the theory the guy was using to say that there WAS a God.

On the contrary Frogger, Vile's rebuttal clearly states that God exists. Here is what God looks like:
http://www.journeys.travel/images/countries/photos/papua_new_guinea.jpg
It would seem that the science/religion fight has finally come to a close.

ROFLMAO
My question is why is it so important for the non-believers to believe in god?

ROFLMAO
My question is why is it so important for the non-believers to believe in god?
for the same reason that militant atheists try to shove their religion down everyone else's throats.-it keeps them off the streets and away from sharp objects.:lolhit:

militant like the ones who try to take god off the dollar bill and take prayer out of school and take god out of the pledge of the allengence?

militant like the ones who try to take god off the dollar bill and take prayer out of school and take god out of the pledge of the allengence?
the pledge and the motto are nowhere near as important to avoiding a State Religion as prayer in the classroom...

"God" means your god. if you don't want to speak it, you don't have to. if you don't have a god, it's as meaningful as the words "Yogi Bear". enough ppl are allowed to "affirm" rather than swear an oath to set presidence.

prayer in the classroom is a dangerous thing unless every single child and the teacher belong to not only the smae religion, but the same sect as well. taking turns is out of the question...The Lord's Prayer takes more time with Catholics than Protestants, and Muslims have a pretty strict timetable. no one sincere about the soul of their child would want them forced to practice another faith.

"God" means your god. Wrong. 'God' is capitalized and is therefore the name of the Judeo-Christian god. Otherwise it would be lower case.

Wrong. 'God' is capitalized and is therefore the name of the Judeo-Christian god. Otherwise it would be lower case.
God is not a name, it's a title.

well the rebuttal was not to prove that god does not exist it was show how ignorant the bannana theory was. Nobody has to prove there is not a god it is the person saying that there is a god that has to show the proof!

God is a name, not a title. At least that's what I've always understood. He doesn't go also go by Gary. But maybe he does, Jesus did have a brother named Jimmy.

Anyhoo. Kirk Cameron (sp?) and this other guy have a crazy religious show on the PAX channel where they just walk around acting like pricks all day. :) They're very obnoxious.

And besides, plenty of people, especially out of the U.S. eat bananas whole, peel and all. So wtf?

http://mysite.verizon.net/sportinlife/postimages/ft-terminator.gif

God is not a name, it's a title.
Incorrect.

The term 'god' denotes a deity, the capitalization of the term implies the god of the Abrahamic deity, as that is his name.

If one is to look for "proof" of God's existence, a person should be able to do much better than using a banana as evidence.

Geez, I could point out the prickly pear. It's not a pear but the fruiting body of a cactus. It's covered with inch long spines, then there are the little microscopic barbs that seem to nail the unwary, the fruit is bloodred and has these little dark seeds throughout. The prickly pear is sure as hell not "made" for the human hand, yet it's delicious and nutritious. Ask the indian tribes of the Southwest where that particular food was an important part of native american diet.

Pokweed is another one. Very, very good while young, yet will kill you when mature. Ostrich fern is another one that is good while unfurling yet poisonous when mature. Cowslip is a small herbecous, wet dwelling plant where the leaves are out and out poisonous raw, but good cooked.

Point being is to not hold up a particular food and try to point out God had designed it for humans because of certain features, dammit.

http://mysite.verizon.net/sportinlife/postimages/ft-terminator.gif

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://mysite.verizon.net/sportinlife/postimages/ft-terminator.gif
Now see - something like this is pointless. 1) It isn't funny 2) It's offensive.

It is one thing to disagree with someone of faith...but sharing a picture like this is just juvenile. Jesus Christ is an important figure to a lot of people outside the Christian faith as well, Napster.

Posting that picture doesn't forward your argument at all - it just makes you look like an obnoxious ass. Avoiding looking like an obnoxious ass is one of the reasons that I am no longer religious btw.

I thought it was funny? Does that make me an ass?

God is a name, not a title. At least that's what I've always understood. He doesn't go also go by Gary. But maybe he does, Jesus did have a brother named Jimmy.

Anyhoo. Kirk Cameron (sp?) and this other guy have a crazy religious show on the PAX channel where they just walk around acting like pricks all day. :) They're very obnoxious.

And besides, plenty of people, especially out of the U.S. eat bananas whole, peel and all. So wtf?
"god" itself is a Germanic word not in use within Christendom until the 6th century.

there are 72 known names of God...not one of which, BTW, is God.

Non-believers are laboring under some sort of misconception that we who believe, especially we who believe in the Christian God have for some reason to prove the existence of God.

I don't have to prove God's existence and I cannot prove it any more than you have to prove or can prove his non-existence.

Non-believers are laboring under some sort of misconception that we who believe, especially we who believe in the Christian God have for some reason to prove the existence of God.

I don't have to prove God's existence and I cannot prove it any more than you have to prove or can prove his non-existence.

The burden of proof is on you guys, myself included really. Even though I'm not affiliated with any religion. Even though to be honest I try to disprove god more than I try to prove, even though I believe in something. The only way to be non-biased is to go about it in that way I suppose.

there are 72 known names of God...not one of which, BTW, is God.
Actually since hundreds of millions in the English speaking world use the name "God" as the name to denote the Abrahamic deity, that's his name in the English speaking world.

Now see - something like this is pointless. 1) It isn't funny 2) It's offensive.
1) It is humorous.
2) It is offensive, which is why it is humorous.

But since you think the "Cowbell" skit on SNL is so funny that it merits a large sig pic, we can't count on you to have a broad or even good sense of humor.
Non-believers are laboring under some sort of misconception that we who believe, especially we who believe in the Christian God have for some reason to prove the existence of God.
Why is this a misconception?

And, why believe in something you cannot prove exists?

Jesus Christ is an important figure to a lot of people outside the Christian faith as well, Napster.
So? Just because I'm willing to make fun of Christians, all of a sudden it's not OK because of other people who think the big JC is just a stand-up guy?

You think, if they had the chance, they wouldn't send Arnold back in time to save Jesus from the cross? "Oh, well, we have the technology, let's just forget all about Jesus, and let him die for us!" And if you are thinking, "Well the Christian religion revolved around Jesus's death! If he didn't die, then there'd be no religion!" you'd be bullshitting yourself. I think Christianity would have been much, much better, had JC stuck around to finish building the movement that Pontius Pilate cut short when he executed the guy.

Posting that picture doesn't forward your argument at all - it just makes you look like an obnoxious ass.
Please show me where I made an argument. As far as I can tell, all I made was a snide joke to Frogger, and that pic. I'm glad you don't want to look like an obnoxious ass, but I am not so fussy about the impressions I leave on people, especially people I meet on the Internet.

Non-believers are laboring under some sort of misconception that we who believe, especially we who believe in the Christian God have for some reason to prove the existence of God.

I don't have to prove God's existence and I cannot prove it any more than you have to prove or can prove his non-existence.
When theists knock on our doors, demand to be acknowledged with things like the Pledge of Allegiance, complain about being marginalized when they in fact are the largest religious group in the States, insist on defacing our money, putting their religious symbols in our courthouses, insist on criminal immunity for their priests, I think its quite reasonable to ask for a good reason. If proof is too far out a concept for you religious types, at least give us a good reason why you expect special treatment.

Because to me it looks like you expect all this, on the virtue of a truckload of empty promises from a raving dead man. Even that is hearsay, because said raving dead man had nothing at all to do with the writing of the book you assholes insist proves all this crap. (I know you don't say it proves it, but lots of Christians do)

I know you say it requires faith to believe. Fine. But the above paragraph is exactly how anyone who disputes Jesus' divinity must look at the Christian religion, regardless of what they think of Jesus himself. Do not expect us to have faith when it comes to our schools, courts, children, everything religion insists it must have its fingers in.

Frogger, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that there is a god not the person who says god does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim! A skeptic does not have to prove something exist that doesn't.

Proving or disproving the existence of a God (or Gods) is a exercise in personal mental gymnastics. There is no correct or incorrect conclusion to the debate.

I have often referred to it as a defense of a taste for a food. I personally do not like english peas. I cannot factually defend my dislike of the flavor (other than I think they taste bad). If you like them, fine, but don't expect to convince me how good they taste. By the same token, I will not try to sway you from your belief that they taste good.

We are both correct in our personal "taste".

Actually since hundreds of millions in the English speaking world use the name "God" as the name to denote the Abrahamic deity, that's his name in the English speaking world.
everyone i meet calls me Mike, but that's still not my name!:rolleyes:

I see nothing in the U Tube rebuttal that indicates that God does not exist.

Congratulations, why would you expect to?

everyone i meet calls me Mike, but that's still not my name!:rolleyes:
Mike, quit.

You know and I know full well that the christian god's name in English is "God." Capitalization means it is the christian god.

Mike, quit.

You know and I know full well that the christian god's name in English is "God." Capitalization means it is the christian god.
heretic!

When theists knock on our doors, demand to be acknowledged with things like the Pledge of Allegiance, complain about being marginalized when they in fact are the largest religious group in the States, insist on defacing our money, putting their religious symbols in our courthouses, insist on criminal immunity for their priests, I think its quite reasonable to ask for a good reason. If proof is too far out a concept for you religious types, at least give us a good reason why you expect special treatment.

Because to me it looks like you expect all this, on the virtue of a truckload of empty promises from a raving dead man. Even that is hearsay, because said raving dead man had nothing at all to do with the writing of the book you assholes insist proves all this crap. (I know you don't say it proves it, but lots of Christians do)

I know you say it requires faith to believe. Fine. But the above paragraph is exactly how anyone who disputes Jesus' divinity must look at the Christian religion, regardless of what they think of Jesus himself. Do not expect us to have faith when it comes to our schools, courts, children, everything religion insists it must have its fingers in.

Excellent post Napster, well said. :)

Congratulations, why would you expect to?

Because it was supposed to be a rebuttal and rebuttals usually rebut the thing they are in rebuttal to.



I have no more need to prove the existence of God than an atheist has to prove that God does not exist. Neither proposition can be proven. The problem I have with, not all but quite a few atheists on this board is the basic nastiness they exhibit. They take the discussion beyond a discussion of whether God exist or not and into the realm of personally, insulting those who are believers. They do it through words and through cartoons and pictures. I find very little of this type behavior being directed toward non-believers.

The problem I have with, not all but quite a few atheists on this board is the basic nastiness they exhibit. They take the discussion beyond a discussion of whether God exist or not and into the realm of personally, insulting those who are believers. They do it through words and through cartoons and pictures. I find very little of this type behavior being directed toward non-believers.
I agree. I call myself an atheist, but I see no point or purpose in insulting religion or religious people. It's a personal choice, not some litmus test where you have to choose "correctly" to avoid being labeled stupid or something. However, if you have not seen insults of atheists, you haven't really been paying attention.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." —George H. W. Bush

I have no more need to prove the existence of God than an atheist has to prove that God does not exist.
Stop saying this for the love of all that is crispy and crunchy!

We have explained to you on multiple occasions the burden of proof is on you. The atheist doesn't prove nonexistence, your inability to prove Him makes the atheist correct until you can prove Him.

The problem I have with, not all but quite a few atheists on this board is the basic nastiness they exhibit.
We're all nasty on the board at some time, but who says you as a theist are not as guilty as others?
I find very little of this type behavior being directed toward non-believers.
What constitutes and insult? Perhaps I value reason and logic, leaving your beliefs as blasphemous to me.

Your religion may call you to turn the other cheek, but I do not have the restriction of doing so. In short, I have no reason to respect supernatural religious beliefs and won't do so if I don't want to. Now you'll post a message calling me a mean-spirited person or a Christian basher, perhaps I take that as something that goes into the realm of being "personally" insulting?

OMG what did that have to do with Atheist?????
I'm not sure what the heck that guy was on or if god willed him to speak in such a moronic way. lol
God wants us all to do a banana...OH yeah
Runs out to get banana's and save gods creation.
LMAO this was just a brain cell killer. lol

Neither proposition can be proven.
The problem here, Frogger, is that, while the proposition that God doesn't exist cannot indeed be proven, that is a function more of the inherent logic of such things. But to agree that the proposition that God does exist cannot be proven as well, is extremely damaging to the case for Christianity.

You personally might not need proof, but an increasing number of literate, educated people in this country are beginning to see reason and logic as virtues, to the expense of faith and blind obedience. And when looked at through those eyes, Christianity looks like little more than a hodge-podge of myth, promise, and ten-acre churches.

Christians will soon no longer be able to ignore the reason aspect of their religion, and why people like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson garner incredible amounts of money and support while preaching vitriolic hatred against fellow human beings. No longer will they be able to excuse the inequities of historical events such as the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition.

Sooner or later, the rose-tinted lenses Christians use when observing their faith will have to come off, and cute little cartoons will start to mean much more when taking into account the pattern of abuses visited on the human race by them. I can only hope that the response will not be more fundamentalism, more hatred, more vitriol. I hope instead that characters that continue to give Christianity a bad name will be cast out of prominence, for it is those characters that propel freethinkers to log on to web-forums and post much milder, but somehow even more damaging ridicule. After all, you don't see us telling everyone that all the fags are going to hell, do you?

Because it was supposed to be a rebuttal and rebuttals usually rebut the thing they are in rebuttal to.

I see. I took the first video to be more about whether the existence of the banana proved the existence of God, not just whether God exists or not. It is my contention that the first video did not prove the existence of God, and the second video didn't prove his non-existence, but the second video did prove that the people in the first video are morons. :)


I have no more need to prove the existence of God than an atheist has to prove that God does not exist. Neither proposition can be proven. The problem I have with, not all but quite a few atheists on this board is the basic nastiness they exhibit. They take the discussion beyond a discussion of whether God exist or not and into the realm of personally, insulting those who are believers. They do it through words and through cartoons and pictures. I find very little of this type behavior being directed toward non-believers.

I can understand how you feel, but this is a discussion board, and religion is a touchy subject for a lot of people. You have no problem calling people a "dumbass" when you disagree with them, so why should you be treated with any more respect?:)

The banana theory video was strange. I guess I was surprised at the matter-of-fact tone used in presenting an obviously dumb theory. 99% of people I know, religious or not, would immediately conclude that the theory is dumb. I am not sure there's even a need to debunk something like that!

For one thing, the underlying logic is confusing.
It goes from:

1) banana is perfect for holding and eating
to
2) god created bananas

without explaining how 1) leads to 2)...

At the very least they could have tried first to form a premise:

Are there some properties that matters must display in order to prove that it was created by god? What are these properties?

Then apply it to all matters. If some matters don't fit the premise then you say either 1) my premise needs modification or 2) god didn't create this particular matter.

I see nothing in the U Tube rebuttal that indicates that God does not exist.


Just as nothing in the "atheist's nightmare" video suggests --in the slightest, most infinitessimal way-- the existence of some supernatural "creator".

____________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their fantastic, extraordinary claims.

As an atheist I can confirm I wake up every night in a pool of sweat from dreams of being chased by lumbering triffid-like bananas.