facebook twitter itunes sms
 

The Break Room

Mornings: 6:00 - 10:00
Watch TBR on Ustream



Wednesday's Proof.

WARNING: This may scare you. And if it gets to Art Bell, then you have to admit there may be something to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6h2dZ51iy8&feature=related



 
01/07/2009 3:26PM
Wednesday's Proof.
Please Enter Your Comments Below
01/08/2009 6:27PM
Darryl in PY
If this is what you consider proof, I hope you never get seated on a jury. If a doctor reported that he brought a patient back "from the dead" and that the patient had no experience of either Heaven or Hell, would you take that as proof that there is neither? Of course you wouldn't, that would be anecdotal evidence, which is useless when trying to establish proof. Your low standard of proof is what allowed "witches" to be burned at the stake on accusations of nasty villagers. I'm an atheist, but if I were shown credible evidence of God (not even PROOF) then I would gladly revisit my faith.
01/08/2009 7:13PM
dannyb-rochester
Fair point, again, Darryl. But I want to write as many of these as possible and I, like lawyers, am trying to build a case. Of course, I would be insane to just take this one example at face value. But one of the geologists in the piece himself said he didn't necessarily believe in God, but he did have evidence there was a hell of some sort. The other thing is that, when I used to do overnights at another station that broadcasts the Art Bell Show, he would always welcome asinine scenarios about a "mysterious Planet X" shadowing Earth across the sun while poo-pooing Christianity and legitimate religions as a whole. For a guy like Bell to suggest the possibility Hell may be real is a heckuva step. I should probably stop calling these "proofs" and start calling them "exhibits." Just a better choice of words; wouldn't you agree? :-) Again, just trying, little-by-little to build a case. Thanks for keeping me in-check. cdb
01/15/2009 8:07PM
Darryl in PY
I very much welcome the change in terminology. You are correct, evidence does not equal proof. Please, please, please don't suggest Art Bell is a fair adjudicator of religious evidence. He is paid to remain controversial and appeal to a fairly low denominator, namely, those who want to be spoonfed so-called "proof" that their wackjob conspiracies have a basis in fact. Basing religious belief on Art Bell broadcasts is like beleiving you can perform an appendectomy because you watch M*A*S*H. Your evidence of the existence of God should be from credible sources or well thought-out hypotheses, not from a paid instigator. One's religious grounding deserves at least that much.
Title :
Comment :
advertise with us
Recent Posts
Categories
Archives