Throw Lawrence Krauss on the pile

Do they grow the coconuts in Ontario? Are they snow coconuts?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-43206517/syrian-women-sexually-exploited-by-aid-workers

Speaking of sexual misconduct... Western aid agencies give aid supplies to local Syrian aid groups and it isn't surprising that the animals act like the animals they are by routinely refusing to distribute aid unless women first perform sexual acts upon them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43210596

Another interesting case which I think actually deserves consideration. Essener Tafel is a German charity which runs food banks across Germany giving free food to the needy with no questions asked. It has been having a big problem though and that problem is entirely due to male Muslim migrants. The Muslims used to make up a low single digit percentage of the people showing up at the government subsidized charity but now it says that conservatively at least 75% are migrants and almost always single young male migrants. Worse the muslim migrants routinely sexually harass women such as widows or single mothers who rely upon the food bank's services and things have gotten so bad there have even been assaults and rapes committed by the feral animals. Seeing that German woman had simply stopped coming to the charity out of well founded fears for their own safety and knowing full well that these poor women still desperately needed the services of the charity... The charity wanted to test out specific days which would only be for German citizens so regular people in need would not have to fear the routine harassment or assault by the animals. Regular services would still be offered for the hordes of illegal alien third world criminals who daily show up demanding free shit despite already getting three square meals a day, free housing, and free pocket money from the German government.

Naturally, leftists attacked them even for this sensible policy vandalizing property belonging to the charity claiming they were all evil Nazis... Simply because they were trying to come up with sound policies to deal with an obvious documented safety problem caused by violent muslim migrants. It is a sad state of affairs we've come to.

Why are you making this thread about your hatred for Muslims, you cunt?

Montgomery Burns. Easy mistake to make.

This is what happens when coconuts are migratory. I blame North American swallows.

@Dayton3, you disagreed with this post, but you never said what information you are still missing.

You're rep whining about a simple disagreement and not a "dumb" "GFY", "Fantasy World" or a "facepalm"?

You asked "What kind of evidence would it take for you to accept there is a God?" and indicated that you had asked this many times, with the implication that it has been difficult to obtain an answer.
But now you have your answer. Is there any part of it that is unclear to you, such that you no longer need to ask the question?

Yes, it is unclear to me. Because in my opinion is one is open minded one will agree that there is a type of evidence they will accept which is not direct and obvious.

I accept that there are things called "quarks" even though I've never seen them, haven't done research regarding their existence, don't know any of the researchers that have done the work, don't know their methodology or the technology they work with.

In short, I accept that quarks exist because I've read about them and have faith that there are honest researchers who have done the work with the proper equipment and methodology.

Like it or not, that is an act of faith.

Without getting into that, how does that fact that your opinion differs make the explanation given of the contrary opinion unclear?
You can say it is closed-minded if you wish, but you have been told that direct, rigorous and testable evidence is required of the type that leads inexorably to belief, with no real choice in the matter. That ought not to be at all unclear.

That's not how evidence works.
And deep inside you know that, or you'd consider Islam.
Islam has no obvious evidence outside of the Koran.
Yet you're not a Muslim.
You consider Islam as fake as I do.
The only difference between us, is I go one religion further, and throw Christianity on the pile.

Oh, and about the quarks.
Have I laid eyes on a quark?
No.
I haven't set foot on Japan either.
But I know Japan exists.
I've seen photographs, I've seen movies, I've run into Japanese tourists in Novia Scotia.
There could be a sophisticated conspiracy to make me believe in an imaginary country called "Japan", but for people to put that much resources into it for my benefit, I must be the Most Special Person On Earth, and I don't have that kind of solipsism.

For quarks, the math adds up, and their predicted signature shows up in detectors.
Good enough for me.
Someone could disprove quarks with a new theory of physics, and on that day, I'll go "wow, I learned something new".
Not "no!! I've believed in this all my life!! My vanity!! My vanity!! My vanitttyy!!!! Kill the blasphemers!!!".

It would help if Jesus sent us orbs to help us communicate with him.

Really, the Bajoran religion really fucking delivers!

Prove it. With evidence you gathered by your own hand, with instruments you designed and built yourself, with research methodologies you preferred yourself.

No of course not. You read what someone else wrote. In a book.

Dayton, God doesn't exist. So just shut up.

You think that's a "gotcha!", but that's actually how science works, that's what peer review is.
Anyone can pick up a science journal, and replicate the experiments.
I personally don't have to, because multiple scientists already try to poke holes in everything.
A young whipper-snapper scientists would LOVE to make a name for themselves by overturning the established view.
Evolution (for example) is a fact because thousands of scientists have tried to poke holes, and failed.
Evolution has more proof behind it than gravity.

Now, your book of bronze age fairy tales however, not so much.
Ken Ham peer reviewed Noah's Ark by making one, and despite the experiment's miserable failure, Christians still believe in it.
So, don't tell me I'm the one who believes without evidence when you believe IN THE FACE of evidence.

And of course you have FAITH in them....

I know human nature.
Science would have to be a conspiracy, and no conspiracy that huge holds together.
The littlest conspiracy crumbles.

And with science, we're talking a conspiracy that leaves its plans out, and goes "here's how we did it, and here's how you undo it".
It's called science journals.

Unfortunately, Dayton does not hold up under peer review.

Yet you have no problem seemingly to believe such a conspiracy spanning more than two thousand years about Jesus.

Obviously you are like everyone else. You believe what you want to believe.

Conspiracies are hidden.
There's nothing hidden about religion.
They do it right in your face.
"Here's some crazy bullshit that's hard to believe, we admit there's no evidence, now give me money, and hand me power".
And people line right up for it.

Hey Mr. History Teacher, can you speak a little on the historical facts surrounding the existence of Jesus?

Oh wait, it's in the Bible, which is a historical document through and through. Nvm buddy.

I am not rep whining, I am asking you about your position.

If that is all the information you have on quarks, you should not believe in their existence. However, other information is easily available.

Remember, you're talking to someone who probably thinks scientists believe we evolved from extant monkey species because that's what Ken Hamm said. Christianity and the scientific method don't mix.

The book (and the film based on it) "The Case for Christ" outlines the logical arguments in favor of the death and resurrection of Christ better than I can on an internet discussion board.

I don't know "Ken Hamm". and Scientific Method is not some flawless methodology that is guaranteed to reveal all the secrets of the universe. It is simply a way of looking at things. A framework for the gathering and evaluation of evidence. It is probably the best we have. Right now. One can't say that we won't have something better in the future and that what we call "Scientific Method" today won't prove obsolete in the future.