Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Do You Believe In God ?

There are no atheists in foxholes....or paras about to jump into a hot DZ.


Khe Sanh-1971

That data disagrees with you.

Who constitutes the largest customer base for Only Fans content? White, Christian, men.
Highest incidence of porn addition, same.

When we look at nearly any marker of wellbeing, income, abortion rates, single motherhood, drug use, pick one, it doesn't really matter, the more fundamentalist the population the worse the outcome.

If we hold the just income and normalize for other variable, highest earners are Atheist, followed Jews, Christians, Hindu's, Buddhist, Muslims, and last is your primitive, tribal type religions.

The forces that changed dating so much are easy transportation, modern birth control, and the cell phone/dating apps/social media.

Not true.

You have lived in Australia?[/quote] Been there. Prefer NZ, hunting is better. USA probably the best place to live over-all, Canada is ok.

There is science and then there’s the cult of science. Does God exist? A truly scientific mind that doesn’t believe in God says “I don’t know.”. Atheists aren’t truly scientific minds. There’s more than intelligence involved. There’s the ability to avoid prejudice and bias and atheists lack that ability.

In fact, they strongly rely on religious proportions of faith in their own preconceived notion. Otherwise, intelligent design would be considered possible. Thinly veiling atheistic confirmation bias by treating theories as laws is not science. It is using the cult of science to falsely validate one’s belief as an indisputable fact. A person can state there is no possibility of an intelligent designer, but they can’t call that approach scientific without breaking their own rules.

You may not believe in God while you’re in mortal form, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Whatever side you fall on requires faith.

CCCC isn't a troll.

He's the one getting trolled.

If humans are so complex they require design, and God is more complex that humans, who designed God?

I can't believe that he is so dumb, that on another thread he admits he is not very smart. A real Forrest Gump!

Well he's the moth who was upset by the other moths coming to the flame - all were invited.

To be fair, CCCC is actually a very smart guy. I believe he has at least a PHD in Music, and perhaps a second in something else. In certain music circles he's well known and respected. In this thread he got bested by his emotions and lost his composure, which for him is rare thing.

The sum of a man's character is not measured on single subject, nor on a particularly off day for him.

Complexity is a subjective term and I don’t understand how it’s more scientifically applicable to intelligent design than evolution. As far as question of “Who designed God?”, Christian faith suggests faith in His eternal existence . True science requires us to say “I don’t know”. Atheism claims “Gotcha”.

I don't like absolutes, I prefer probabilities. I may not "know" something, but at the same time be certain to 5 or 6 sigma's, and that's how language of "real" science.

In music? LOL!!! He's spent many days being a troll, not just one "off-day". If he wants to be respected, perhaps he should behave on this thread like he does in real life.

I got along well with him in the past, but I think everyone's a bit "off" since Covid.

Every one a covtard.

Afraid outta their mind, of concepts beyond their capacity ta understand.

Unfortunately, just bout everthing is beyond their capacity ta understand.

I guess not liking something can provoke an idea that leads to to a hypothesis, then to a theory and finally a law, so perhaps there’s some relevance at a reach. As far as the language of real science, I’m at a disadvantage and my ignorance leads me to believe it’s not essential to communicate the simplest of truths. In fact, it seems to be an effective way of avoiding the inconvenient ones (in some cases).

Ray, is Science it's hypothesis, law, then Theory.

A hypothesis is and idea to be tested. Positive results can lead to laws, and Theory's are the over arching framework explaining a set of laws.

Finding are typically stated in terms of probabilities. Generally speaking, in order for a find to be published in a peer reviewed journal it must have a minimum certainty of 2 sigma, or fall outside of 2 standard deviations from the norm. Put another way, there's must at least a 95% chance the finding is not due to random chance. Standard from some experiments can be much higher. Before the results for finding the Higgs Bozon were accepted they had to reach 7 sigma, or 99.9999999997% chance the finding were not due to random chance.

Of course that's not how Fox or CNN published the results. They will announce "Scientist found the Higgs Bozon", not "Scientist are 99.9999999997 certain they found the Higgs Boson."

Not laughter material. If want the lesson on objectivity, see my response regarding Riflehunter's pleas for ignore. The essence of that post is based purely on things he has already posted - positions taken - actual evidence from his keyboard. Not wishes or guesses - not based on any personal animosity. If he or others find the post insulting, it is due to facts - not ad homs.

You really should learn the difference between the unlearned personal smears some post - seemingly due to frustrated ignorance - and the logical, objective content-based critiques of posts and the ostensible reasoning. You know - the objective evidence-based critiques that cause your ilk to itch and chafe, right after you dash at the flame. If you learn that, it may help you be a better person - or, at least, a better poster.

Now, once again, maybe post the real reason(s) that your type come to get stuck on the glue paper strip?

Outcome being determined by intention and purpose.... if atheism plays little or no part in what are political and ideological decisions and actions, atheism cannot be blamed for the outcome of these actions.

There you go again, desperatley trying to turn the tables, playing a rightous man, the tragic victim even while being the aggressor, hurling insults even while complaining about what you reap.

You do precisely what you accuse your opponents of.