[N0help4u]

I didn't give him credit because I didn't remember who said it and I didn't have the time to look it up. I did however remember the quote. Didn't realise I had do to a bibliography for my work.

When you quote somebody and you do not know who said it you can either say
Someone once said
Or you can type
Quote [then the quote] in the search engine and see if it comes up
You can do the same with lyrics to songs
Lyric [then a few words of the song]

All that Christians do is believe in one more God than Non-believers/Atheists do. (Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote?? )

No Cred you did not have to because you put it in your own words.
Of course you can here and now make this your own quote and have others reference YOU :D

[Credendovidis]

When you quote somebody and you do not know ...

Or you state : "Did I have to give credit to someone for this quote ???"

:)

·

[N0help4u]

Yeah something to show that you acknowledge it as a quote
:D

[michealb]

I figured you all were smart enough to realize when I put it in "quotes" to realize it was a quote since I put it in "quotes". I guess I need to dumb it down and make sure I have time to put bibliography next time.

English Works! Writing: Punctuation & Grammar Review
Updated June 1, 2001
Copyright© 1997-present by English Works! At Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.

[N0help4u]

It is not about dumbing it down. It is about not looking like plagiarism, using quotations alone does not prove it was said by somebody else.

[michealb]

Fine, you got me I was trying to pass it off as my own work and I always put my own words in quotes. If you like you can go back over all my posts and look for other grammar mistakes as well, I'm sure there are plenty. Knock yourself out.

[michealb]

Back on topic I can't disprove a all powerful god but this guy does a good job disproving Christianity.
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 1 of 3
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 2 of 3
YouTube - Explaining why Christianity is FALSE - Take 3 of 3
For those that can't tell these videos are not my work and I'm not sure they are the work of the guy that posted them either.

[NeedKarma]

It is not about dumbing it down. It is about not looking like plagiarism, using quotations alone does not prove it was said by somebody else.

The fact that he used quotations told me it wasn't his words. It's common usage on the internet.

[Credendovidis]

The topic question is "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?"

But I ask myself why that is asked, as the question "objective/subjective how does it prove God?" has not been answered yet??

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

I believe it HAS been answered

The question is unanswerable. Those who are not religious, who live their daily lives without the need for a god, have no need to prove that something they don't see/doesn't exist (i.e. proving a negative). Those that believe in a god do so out of faith and require no proof whatsoever.

[Credendovidis]

The topic question is "objective/subjective how does it DISprove God?"

But I ask myself why that is asked, as the real question "objective/subjective how does it PROVE God?" has never been answered yet !

Seems more that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."

So where is that O.S.E. than??

:rolleyes:

·

[N0help4u]

And where do you get the idea that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."??

[NeedKarma]

and where do you get the idea that the questioner tries to suggest that there is "Objective Supported Evidence that proves God exists."?????????

You're asking how we can prove that god is *not* the power/force behind everything which makes the assumption that he is by default. Is this not correct?

[Capuchin]

This is the whole crutch of russel's teapot - there's no point in trying to disprove anything that has no evidence for believe it exists in the first place - otherwise we'd be spending all our time trying to disprove celestial teapots etc.

So yes, your question does suggest you believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God.

[N0help4u]

Last post page 19
I agreed that the replies of it not being able to be answered answered the question and I believe I have stated that a couple times here myself as well as others.

[shw3nn]

I cannot disprove God.
I cannot disprove Allah.
I cannot disprove Odin.
I cannot disprove Krishna.
I cannot disprove Zeus.
I cannot disprove Baal.
I cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

They are all simply stories that I find to be incredibly unbelievable. And you feel the same way I do but with only the one exception. You have no logical justification for choosing God over Krishna. You've done so because of what the people you grew up around believed.

Nobody is asking you to disprove Krishna. It doesn't fall on you to do so. It is the responsibility of Hindus to prove he does exist. You are free to disbelieve in Krishna without proving he doesn't exist.

If you want to change those rules, feel free. But, you're going to have to disprove every deity besides the Christian God before you ask me for anything. Then you get to ask me to disprove that one.

[lobrobster]

why dont you give credit to Stephen Roberts for this quote?

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

according to the definition of athiest, i am not an athiests so I think Stephen roberts made a foolish statement. :rolleyes:

So you don't disbelieve or deny the existence of Vishnu? What about Wotan and Thor? I didn't realize you were THAT much of a theist Sassy! -lol

[lobrobster]

Again gravity is an irrefutable scientific fact that I have no problem with.

Actually, there is MUCH about the principles of gravity that are not yet understood. In fact, the properties of gravity are more perplexing to scientists than evolution is!

No.. lol you are making an invalid comparison here.. Photosythesis is an observable scientific fact

So is evolution.

... and does not rely on any unverifiable assumptions.

Neither does evolution.

I don't know why you are deliberately exaggerating my statement and taking it out of context.

I really don't mean to, and it's becoming obvious you understand more about science than your posts lead one to believe. Still... I don't know how you are comfortable being among the overwhelmingly small minority who question evolution and the age of the earth. At some point you have to ask yourself why all these other scientists are willing to treat them as fact. No?

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

I didn't give him credit because I didn't remember who said it and I didn't have the time to look it up. I did however remember the quote. Didn't realise I had do to a bibliography for my work.

I just think if you are going to quotes someone word for word the least you can do is give them credit instead of trying to pass the statement off as your own.

Showing again that you don't have a decent education. Which I guess it's not your fault, it's really the fault of our school systems and public policy. That's a topic for another time though.

I would think it is your education level that is questionable considering you don't know that quoting someone's work without giving them credit is called plagiarism and it is illegal. You should have learned that in college.

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Let me explain in a way that you might understand.

SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of Zeus. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping Zeus.

SassyT disbelieves and denies the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There for SassyT is an atheist when it comes to worshipping FSM.

Do you understand the quote now?

NO.. Correction "Sassy disbelieves but does not deny the existence of Zeus. However Sassy is not an atheist because she believes in God.

The word atheist is actually from the greek word Atheos which means GODLESS. So to say just because I don't believe in some gods, make me "godless" is a missrepresentation of reality.
Also I don't deny the existence of Zeus (or whoever), all I can say about Zeus is I don't know whether he exists or not, so if anything I am agnostic in that respect. ;)

[sassyT]

I cannot disprove God.
I cannot disprove Allah.
I cannot disprove Odin.
I cannot disprove Krishna.
I cannot disprove Zeus.
I cannot disprove Baal.
I cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

True so why say they dont exist when you dont know and can't prove it?

They are all simply stories that I find to be incredibly unbelievable.

In your opinion yes, but there are atleast 5 billion people who would disagree with you.

And you feel the same way I do but with only the one exception. You have no logical justification for choosing God over Krishna. You've done so because of what the people you grew up around believed.

this again is your subjective opinion, there is nothing factual about this statement. I for one never grew up around Christians but i am one now. So this fact has already faulsified your empty unsupported claims.

Nobody is asking you to disprove Krishna. It doesn't fall on you to do so. It is the responsibility of Hindus to prove he does exist. You are free to disbelieve in Krishna without proving he doesn't exist.

And you are free also to disbelieve in God without having to prove he does not exist. But dont come on a religious forum and CLAIM God does not exists unless you are willing and able to prove it.

If you want to change those rules, feel free. But, you're going to have to disprove every deity besides the Christian God before you ask me for anything. Then you get to ask me to disprove that one.

No need to do that.
You dont believe in God ... Good for you
we believe in God ... good for us
lets just leave at that.