# Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?


Our spirituality is different, and many times stronger than theists.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

NoNukes said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


Stronger?  How would you measure that?


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

There are several spiritual systems in effect in our world.

They are:

1 - Theism (God watches over me)

2 - Deism (God exists but is distant from me and I am on my own)

3 - Atheism (there is no God)

4 - Agnosticism (I don't know if there is a God or not -- show me a sign)

5 - Science as a religion (the Big Bang is my God and I don't think it needed a God to create it -- it happened all by itself)

Each of these is a belief system of some sort.

Modern Catholicism is theistic science.  The Vatican now does lots of its own pure science including astronomy since They got it all wrong with Galileo.

I can't speak for other religions.

Atheism is simply a belief system which postulates a negative.  This negative however cannot be proven, just as the positivist Theist/Deist systems cannot be proven either.

This is where FAITH comes in.  You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it.  If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.

Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

NoNukes said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


What are you really saying NoNukes  ?  That you are more fanatical ?!


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Me?  I would say less so, as atheists behave so much like religious fundamentalists.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 29, 2016)

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 29, 2016)

Not believing in god isn't a dead in at all.. In fact believing in science and a evidence based outlook on life is much more supported then your god.Science supports its theories, while you have to have pure belief to continue to believe in your god.

You're the dead end. You have no proof for your god or even a single damn thing in the bible.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


Actually it was NoNukes that made the claim.

You on the other hand are asking questions, whether true questions or rhetorical ones.  So I don't have any data on you yet however.

The two most famous atheists I know were Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell, FYI.

Einstein (a scientist) did not worry much about Religion at all.  He was too busy boinking his cousin on the side behind his wife's back.  He lacked any ethics at all.  This is perceived as the major shortcoming of atheists generally.

Russell (a mathematician and philosopher) became jaded against the notion of a God due to his own bad experiences during WW1.  He too was known as a womanizer after his marriage failed, but this was not an ethical issue -- he was faithful to his wife while married to her.  They just lost interest in each other after a few years.  Russell was extremely ethical, so much so that he hated propaganda of any kind.  So Russell demonstrates that you can have great ethics and still be nonreligious.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.


Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


for one thing the BB is just the most accepted theory that fits our observations of the Universe it is not a 100% proven fact yet if it ever will be.

Have you ever considered that people may not have the capability to completely understand the universe much like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra ?


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life.  At the very least he needs Philosophy.  And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself?  If it can than IT is GOD.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ??  Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began?  What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> This is where FAITH comes in.  You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it.  If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.  Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.


Respectfully, this reminds me of political partisanship.
.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

Mac1958 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > This is where FAITH comes in.  You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it.  If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.  Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.
> ...


If it becomes fanatical then yes, it is like political partisanship.

A fanatical individual will want and try to push their own ideology onto you.

And that is clearly partisanship.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...




There is no conclusive evidence that you ever happened either. 


.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


It had to happen eventually. In a an infinite universe strange things necessarily happen.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I believe that you have just proven the premise of the OP, lol.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 29, 2016)

So what if atheism is an intellectual dead end. maybe that's all there is.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 29, 2016)

ding said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


ReallY??


Please tell me more!

Pretty pleeeesse with a cherry on top!.


----------



## ding (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Why?  You just proved the point all on your own.  I could not do more to expose your intellectual shortcoming than you just did.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



God is a man made concept. 
We don't know if the BB even happened.  It's all conjecture at this point.  It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point


----------



## turzovka (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> There are several spiritual systems in effect in our world.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...



Nice try to summarize, but I, myself, have some real disagreements on certain points.

*>> Science as a religion (the Big Bang is my God and I don't think it needed a God to create it -- it happened all by itself)*
That’s effectively atheism or you might call it indifference.   If science (or a scientist) is not interested in trying to understand if God exists or not, then that science or endeavor is of very minor importance to mankind, compared to theology.  Purpose of existence and what happens after the grave trump simple knowledge of things.   

*>>Modern Catholicism is theistic science. The Vatican now does lots of its own pure science including astronomy since They got it all wrong with Galileo.*
The Catholic Church since the earliest centuries a.d. has been very much into scientific discovery and advancement --- more than any other body in Europe at a minimum.      Very few people truly understand what took place with Galileo, it is nothing like the secular unchurched world is so eager to share.    The Catholic Church honored Galileo before and after  in many ways and treated him quite nicely as a house prisoner.   But the larger point is, the Church was very much interested in Galileo’s work and many other Catholic scientist just like he.   

As far as “modern Catholicism” goes, that is a new phrase I never heard.    But it is critical (for me) to note that the Catholic Church has no formal teaching or doctrine on evolution and similar concerns.   Yes, there are many scientists in the clergy now teaching evolution but it is not widely accepted nor is it promoted to the faithful.    I wish they would back off on it though, it bothers me.   I think the fossil evidence (and other evidence) for evolution is so lacking that it becomes evidence for creationism. 

*>>Atheism is simply a belief system which postulates a negative. This negative however cannot be proven, just as the positivist Theist/Deist systems cannot be proven either.*
That’s your position.    As far as I am concerned, God has proven Himself with empirical evidence a thousand times over.   I have no need for faith or the Bible to assure me of that.

*>>This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.*
No.   That is not where faith comes in for Catholics like me.  We know God exists through historical and empirical evidence and through reason when you consider all the evidence together.  It is beyond any doubt.    Faith comes in not with core dogma but with other promises of the Bible or revelations through the years.   Such as, I have faith my prayers will be answered.   I have faith that God’s mercy will save many, many people who have rejected their Savior or never knew of Jesus.    I have faith God is going to get me through a certain trial.   Etc.    Big difference than saying I have faith Jesus exists and is the Son of God.  That, we know.

*>>Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.*
Where did you ever come up with that?     What could be more important than wanting your family and those close to you to be in heaven for all eternity?   Why would I leave my child or others to the wiles of the devil when I know God has revealed Himself to me so that I may be a witness for God to others?     Nothing is more important than God and eternal matters.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




I believe that yours is the most sensible and intellectually honest approach.

That being said, what would suffice as proof?

What if seeing no evidence of God is only evidence of your inability to see?

Are you open to that possibility?

What then? What would be the only right course to take?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 29, 2016)

I never understood why people make such a big deal about the BB and God creating it. Science pushes the envelope of understanding the beginnings of the universe deeper and deeper. There is always a point that science doesn't understand this year, but maybe it will next year. If you want to say God created that point, fine. So what. 

I am puzzled why people make the leap that we should worship that sort of God, and pray, and assume that universe creator, God, micromanages our lives.
If you want to be religious about it, I think studying science is the greatest and ultimate liturgy. Idolizing the point of origin of the universe is a waste of time.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> I never understood why people make such a big deal about the BB and God creating it. Science pushes the envelope of understanding the beginnings of the universe deeper and deeper. There is always a point that science doesn't understand this year, but maybe it will next year. If you want to say God created that point, fine. So what.
> 
> I am puzzled why people make the leap that we should worship that sort of God, and pray, and assume that universe creator, God, micromanages our lives.
> If you want to be religious about it, I think studying science is the greatest and ultimate liturgy. Idolizing the point of origin of the universe is a waste of time.


 

Not only that, the story of Genesis is not even about the beginning of the universe, the solar system, the earth, the first plants, animals,  or human beings.

Believers profess to believe in what the story is not about, unbelievers cite scientific discoveries that prove false what the story is not about, each caught up in an eternally unreconcilable enmity. Talk about a waste of time!


What it is actually about, what ancient nomadic people were actually teaching their children through well known instructional literary techniques, remains hidden and above the grasp of the believer with the greatest faith or unbeliever with the highest I.Q.,  even when openly revealed in full view of believers and unbelievers alike..

Astonishing!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 29, 2016)

Atheism not at all is an intellectual dead end.

However, it can be a spiritual and emotional dead end, yes.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 29, 2016)

hobelim said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



I am of course open to not the possibility but to the certainty that humans will not be able to understand everything because of the physical limitations of our intellect and sensory capabilities which does indeed  create the conundrum you just outlined

As yet I have no solution to that particular puzzle but continue to reflect on it


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?



I guess spiritually dumb is the best answer

It just makes no sense to me. I hear explanations of what you believe in and that voice in my head says....This shit makes no sense

You believe a virgin had a baby and that baby had magical powers and was tortured and killed and came back to life....Yea.....makes a hell of a lot of sense to me

Then you believe there is a magical being  who watches over us and rewards the good and punishes the bad......Oh wait...That's Santa Claus


----------



## hobelim (Dec 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




My solution was to assume that my mind had been defiled and contaminated since birth by thousands of years of misunderstanding and confusion.  I didn't need proof that I couldn't make sense out of anything. 'Life's a bitch and then you die',  or,  'shit happens' wasn't a good enough answer for me.

If the mind is the only tool a human being has to process information gathered from observing and living life, purifying and cleansing the mind would seem to be the only logical first step to take for anyone who would want to apply their mind to learn and know the unadulterated truth...


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


You have WAY more faith than I could ever muster. The universe being infinite is not even known but everything happened because it eventually would have? 

My experience with atheists is that they will believe anything is possible but god.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2016)

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from?   God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people?  God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east?  God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue?  Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


That's easy.  There wasn't one.  "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity.  However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories.  In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop.  With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics.  We're learning neat new stuff every day.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 29, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..
> 
> It provides all the answers:
> 
> ...


that's the peace religion and mythology offer

we as a species hate a mystery


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


You're right.  So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it?  The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God".  One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 29, 2016)

hobelim said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I never said we couldn't make sense out of anything
We obviously can.  We know the why and how of many things.

My contention is that there are as many if not more whys and hows that we will never understand because of the limitations of our intellect which is a physical entity derived from our organic selves

I hate to keep using the dog and algebra analogy but it most succinctly sums it up


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..
> 
> It provides all the answers:
> 
> ...


And that is the advantage of *Atheism*.  When one has all of the answers, there is no need for further exploration, or discovery, is there?

But, when one must respond with, "I don't know", that rather paves the way for the logical response of "Let's find out!", now doesn't it?  I rather prefer a path that offers questions to explore, rather than answers to be accepted.  Don't you?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..
> ...



Atheism does not have all the answers I have never heard that espoused by any atheist

Atheists IMO tend to be a more empirical sort


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


You're right, there are no facts regarding origins.  Which means that there is no more Proof of God than anything else.  God is just a theory.  So?  Your point?


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Ummm...I think I acknowledged that.  That's why I like Atheism.  It doesn't presume to have answers that must be accepted; it presents questions to be explored.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



 I don't remember saying that we can't make sense out of anything. I thought that I said that "I didn't need proof that I couldn't make sense out of anything.." meaning more than just knowing the cycle of life, the birds and the bees, whats in a history book, etc.. I thought what I said was clear.....

Must be some sort of malfunction in my brain.....


sorry...


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I made my point. Plus I said you can't read. I said my experience with atheists is that they are willing to believe in anything but god.

Theists admit they believe by faith. Atheists pretend to have science on their side while making declarations of faith. One side honest, the other not.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



And is one of the disadvantages of the spiritual

If you don't accept the answer from your religion you are threatened by an eternity in hell


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 29, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



religions use the time tested carrot and sticks of fear and greed to manipulate their followers


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Wrong.  Atheists make statements based on available evidence and Proof.  "There is no God".  Provide proof otherwise, and every atheist will change their position.

I also state that living pink unicorns (I had to add the living part, because I realised that "pink unicorns" actually *do* exist - toy companies sell them) do not exist.  Would you claim that is a "statement of faith", since lack of evidence does not, in your world view is not sufficient for asserting a negative?  Since lack of evidence is not enough to make the statement "God does not exist", why is it enough to make the statement that "Pink unicorns do not exist"?


----------



## badger2 (Dec 29, 2016)

From burial customs of the Neolithic, Theo learned early on how to manipulate a fundamental illusion of man: the illusion of not being dead once we already are. James Earl Jones soothsaying Conan about the now departed loved one, is the cartoon.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Wrong. Atheists make claims they can't back up. "We believe in scientific facts that haven't been discovered yet" is a statement of faith. No way around it. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

Pink unicorns? Who gives a shit. Go ahead and say they do or do not exist. Both are statements of faith. The theist admits it, atheists lie about it.


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


That pink unicorns do not exist is a statement of faith?!?!?

And this is why I have you on ignore; because you make ridiculous statements that have no relation to actual reality.  Back to fantasy land with you.  Bu bye.


----------



## the_human_being (Dec 29, 2016)

The common term for atheist is "idiot".


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.....says the shit stain that claims to know all of the universe! LOL, you stupid smug little bastard, you have to lie to yourself to believe what you do.


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?


I would go with spiritually dumb. Makes the most sense.


----------



## Hawkins (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



There's no evidence showing that God doesn't exist, unless atheists try to base their evidence on the absence of evidence.

Moreover, you can't even provide evidence of what you just did yesterday. It by no means says that you did nothing yesterday. If you can't even prove what you yourself did yesterday, what's the point of denying God did create the universe thousands or millions years ago?

BBT is just human consensus on how the universe begins. It by no means says that it's a fact. Science can only prove a theory when the object being theorized can be repeated. BBT cannot be proven unless you can make it repeat itself.


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Some 'religious 'people just go through the motions


Constructive Anarchy said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Some 'religious' people just go through the motions and are not spiritual. Some non believers are not spiritual either.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And how is that approach different from any other system or institution?   Sounds just like common human behavior in all kinds of situations.


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

Hawkins said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


There is no evidence showing that pink unicorns don't exist.  Would you take someone seriously who insisted that it should be treated as fact that they do until definitive proof that they don't is presented?



Hawkins said:


> Moreover, you can't even provide evidence of what you just did yesterday. It by no means says that you did nothing yesterday. If you can't even prove what you yourself did yesterday, what's the point of denying God did create the universe thousands or millions years ago?


The difference is that, I can, at least, prove *I exist*.  After that, what I did, or did not do yesterday is a matter for debate.  If you want me to even consider what God did, or did not do millions of years ago, you must first prove that he even *exists*.  I do not entertain what God may, or may not have done in the past, because I have yet to see objective proof of even the existence of God.  You want to debate what God did, or did not do, whithout first proving that God even exists.



Hawkins said:


> BBT is just human consensus on how the universe begins. It by no means says that it's a fact. Science can only prove a theory when the object being theorized can be repeated. BBT cannot be proven unless you can make it repeat itself.


You're quite right.  It is just a theory, and a flawed one at that, as I pointed out.  It is a theory that necessitates a "beginning", and an "end" to the universe.  The newer, quantum models of the universe also fit with all of the known variables of the existing universe, but remove the bookends, which also removes the necessity for trying to understand what "started" the universe.


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


Painting a group of people with such a broad brush is a mistake. I guess theists do not think.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

Hawkins said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


There is little evidence to suggest that humans even have the capacity to perceive, let alone understand, what makes a universe or what makes reality real.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Hawkins said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


If they said it was a statement of faith, which is what theists do.

You claim the intellectual high ground by making statements of faith and calling it science. That's a stupid lie.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 29, 2016)

NoNukes said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



IRONY ALERT


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.


So then you evidently have "faith" in science.    Where is the evolution of thought?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2016)

the_human_being said:


> The common term for atheist is "idiot".



You have to be an idiot not to believe in a magic man in the sky


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > The common term for atheist is "idiot".
> ...


There may be no magic man in the sky, but what kind of idiot imagines he knows what really does or doesn't exist?  Is the human brain the perfect perceptor of everything?


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> There is little evidence to suggest that humans even have the capacity to perceive, let alone understand, what makes a universe or what makes reality real.


There is some -though scant- evidence.

Quantum physicists like Michiu Kaku and Fred Alan Wolfe are on the side of a higher "creator".

Also, the idea of being able to affect  the quantum field and benefit from it is slllooowly making its way into the mainstream.

https://www.amazon.com/E-Squared-Do...3030178&sr=8-1&keywords=e2+book&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## AnCap'n_Murica (Dec 29, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > The common term for atheist is "idiot".
> ...


You have to be an idiot to believe that all you perceive is all that is, and that you are just some giant cosmic accident.


----------



## the_human_being (Dec 29, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > The common term for atheist is "idiot".
> ...



I'm happy we agree.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

NoNukes said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


You aren't exactly making a case for the intellectual foundation of atheism here.


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


You keep using this word "faith".  I think you do not know what it means.  Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.  See, science doesn't *require* faith, because it relies on *observable evidence*.  When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth.  I simply *know that it will*, because gravity is an observable phenomenon.  Evolution as an *observable* process.    The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the *scientists* - and that faith is simply this:  That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep.  Asking.  Questions.  That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence.  It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything.  Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not.  The problem is that my position requires no "faith".  It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented.  It is *your* position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters.  There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God:  "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace".  Do you notice what *all* of these have in common?  "*Me*".  They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation.  In other words, they are all useless as proof.  For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 29, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



The human brain is capable of predicting probabilities based on available evidence

My brain has looked at the available evidence of leprechauns and deduced they probably do not exist


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 29, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


It must be difficult for you to think clearly with your knees jerking so hard.   Post #63 was my first use of the word "faith".  Yet somehow I keep saying it.    You also evidently didn't read the post I was responding to either.    The gentleman in question clearly stated that science would "explain everything eventually".   
That sounds just exactly like a statement of faith.  Doesn't it.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


"It had to happen eventually" is a fallacy of Argument From Ignorance.

See the list below and look it up:
List of fallacies - Wikipedia


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 29, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> So what if atheism is an intellectual dead end. maybe that's all there is.


Atheism is simply a belief system.

It is no better or worse than any other belief system.

It has its pro's and its con's over other belief systems.

It was not an intellectual dead end for Bertrand Russell because he was an atheist and yet also a great philosopher.

Atheism worked for him.

If it works for you too then fine.  If not then you need to seek and find another belief system.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> God is a man made concept.
> We don't know if the BB even happened.  It's all conjecture at this point.  It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.
> 
> I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point


So this is your current mythology then ?!

Very brilliant.

God and Gods are ancient concepts that predate history.

Therefore we do not know where the notion of God or Gods came from and therefore it is impossible to scientifically and logically determine where it came from and whether it is due to REAL God/Gods or not.

In the meantime if this personal mythology works for you then fine.  So be it.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 30, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


You can accuse me of a spewing a logical fallacy all you want. I don't care. The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 30, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> I never understood why people make such a big deal about the BB and God creating it. Science pushes the envelope of understanding the beginnings of the universe deeper and deeper. There is always a point that science doesn't understand this year, but maybe it will next year. If you want to say God created that point, fine. So what.
> 
> I am puzzled why people make the leap that we should worship that sort of God, and pray, and assume that universe creator, God, micromanages our lives.
> If you want to be religious about it, I think studying science is the greatest and ultimate liturgy. Idolizing the point of origin of the universe is a waste of time.


The existence of God/Gods or not is an ancient philosophical issue which originated with Socrates and reached its richest development with San Tomas Aquinas.  Subsequent to San Tomas the philosophers Descartes and Leibniz took it a few steps further.

Religion is ancient and wicked on the other hand.

What you worship is mostly a matter of Religion, although a good philosopher can come up with a philosophical God like Descartes did and worship that Deist Being with a strong ethical code that Philosophy can also provide him/her with as well.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 30, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> You can accuse me of a spewing a logical fallacy all you want. I don't care. The proof is in the pudding.


For anyone who is experienced in logic and evidence, it is an a-priori self evident truth that you Muhammed believe in a fallacy from the fallacy list.

It is not merely my accusation thereof.

If you can't see it then you have a huge blind spot.

If you can't understand it then you are simply not in the top 10% of intellects.  They would have told you if you were back in high school when you went through the rigorous testing.

Suffice it to say you would therefore never have gotten into MIT.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 30, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Atheism is simply a belief system.
> 
> It is no better or worse than any other belief system.
> 
> ...



I don't really have a belief system.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 30, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > God is a man made concept.
> ...



Sorry but no.  Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


So I take it that you are 10,000 years old and an eye witness then?

Where did you find your fountain of youth ??


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 30, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Atheism is simply a belief system.
> ...


There is a fair proportion of people who indeed do not have any belief system and are not interested in one.

This group is usually called "uninterested".


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 30, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



Just look at the history

We used to have a god for everything, water, sun, lightning, fertility etc etc

As we come to understand and explain the world we no longer need these gods

As of right now there are really only 2 big things we still don't know

How the universe began and what happens after we die

These 2 things are now the domain of the one god, the last god we will have

If and when we are ever able to fully understand these things we will no longer have a need for the last god

But as I said we may never understand the origin of the universe


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 30, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> You keep using this word "faith".  I think you do not know what it means.  Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.  See, science doesn't *require* faith, because it relies on *observable evidence*.


That's what I said and it outraged you. You got all upset when I responded to your question about pink unicorns. If there can't observe all the known and unknown universe you can't say what all doesn't exist, it just a statement of faith. Therefore atheism is a declaration of faith, you just proved it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 30, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That's exactly where bog is. He makes statements of faith and believes in facts that haven't been discovered yet. He's horribly brainwashed or just dumb as a brick.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't


But god and religion are not synonomous terms. Whether god exists or not has nothing to do with man's input.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 30, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Humans invented gods to explain what they couldn't
> ...



Gods were invented to explain what people couldn't explain which is why we have throughout history gone from hundreds if not thousands of god to just one


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You are repeating yourself. A billion religions don't prove or disprove the existence of god.


----------



## hobelim (Dec 30, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> You are repeating yourself. A billion religions don't prove or disprove the existence of god.




Very true.

what a billion religions would suggest is that there are at least a billion ways to sucker the gullible.

What more would any superior being possibly want or expect of humans other for them to aspire to become rational and compassionate people who say and do things that reflect the image and likeness of a holy and benevolent God?


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 30, 2016)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > You are repeating yourself. A billion religions don't prove or disprove the existence of god.
> ...


Or it could care about as much about us as we do about gnats. I have no idea and don't make up answers to feel good.


----------



## BreezeWood (Dec 30, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> There are several spiritual systems in effect in our world.
> 
> They are:
> 
> ...


.


yiostheoy said:


> This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.




... directed faith particularly does not exclude the possibility for all others and is only a stepping stone, holding pattern to accomplish the task of realizing the correct answer.

faith is what everyone is born with, the answers are for those that accomplish the goals in life to advance and become a part of the Everlasting.

from Antiquity, they believed who surmounted the Apex of Knowledge to set their Spirit free would first be Judged before being released to make sense for if it is possible and accomplished beforehand, those or the Almighty could intervene to prevent the dark side from contaminating the genome of life.

.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 30, 2016)

BreezeWood said:


> faith is what everyone is born with, the answers are for those that accomplish the goals in life to advance and become a part of the Everlasting.
> 
> from Antiquity, they believed who surmounted the Apex of Knowledge to set their Spirit free would first be Judged before being released to make sense for if it is possible and accomplished beforehand, those or the Almighty could intervene to prevent the dark side from contaminating the genome of life..


Bullshit. If we were born with faith we would all worship the same thing.


----------



## NoNukes (Dec 30, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


The second half was a joke.


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 30, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


It does, and it would be ludicrous if anyone *actually said that*.  But, while you accuse me of not reading clearly, it is you that is *misquoting* what Mohammed said.  He didn't say that science *would* explain everything - as in some blind faith that science will, someday, have all the answers to life; after all, the very point of science is that for every answer, a whole new universe of questions to explore are revealed.  Rather, he said that science *can* explain everything, eventually - as in, given time, every phenomenon has a rational explanation, grounded in science, physics, and mathematics; there is never any reason to ever resort to the supernatural to find explanations for events, and phenomena in the universe.

And I happen to agree with Mohammed 100%.  Just because we haven't found an explanation for a phenomenon *yet*, I have no reason to believe that we won't.  Now is this "faith"?  I supposed.  However, I would submit that this is an observation.  Science has proven itself to unravel every "supernatural" event from "demon possession" to "The gods crying" in the past; I see no reason why that will not continue.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 30, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Oh I see, he said science"can" explain everything eventually.   That's a nearly great distinction in his statement of faith.


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 30, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact.  Science* can* explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...*explaining everythin. *Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural?  Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural.  So, yeah.  It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Dec 30, 2016)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Uh huh, sounds so much different from : God can explain everything, eventually.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 30, 2016)

BreezeWood said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > There are several spiritual systems in effect in our world.
> ...


REALIZING the CORRECT answer would require either an interview with God face to face or else extinction at death.

Not too many people have claimed convincingly that they have seen God face to face.  I have no doubt in Moses, or Peter, James, John, and Paul.  Of course personally there is no proof.  But if we choose to embrace one of these two particular faith systems then with the strength of our own faith we can gain strength and confidence thereby.

I suppose Muslims can derive the same strength of faith in Muhammad, although to me his story is just one big plagiarism.  But to a Muslim conditioned from birth it would likely seem plausible.

If no one had any faith at all then everyone would simply be an agnostic and say "I do not know -- show me -- prove it".

Even atheists must have faith in their own atheism.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 30, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


History does not go back very far.

Sargon The Great is probably the earliest history that we have from his inscriptions in stone telling everyone how great he is and how much land he has conquered.

By then Gods were already in existence.

My avatar is Sargon's God.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 30, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.

We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 30, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



And, by all means, please demonstrate any monotheistic religion that says that.  Not *"will"*, when we "stand before him", but *can and does now".*


----------



## BreezeWood (Dec 30, 2016)

.


yiostheoy said:


> REALIZING the CORRECT answer would require either an interview with God face to face or else extinction at death.





BreezeWood said:


> ... directed faith particularly does not exclude the possibility for all others and is only a stepping stone, holding pattern to accomplish the task of realizing the correct answer.




why would a mortal be asking for metaphysical answers from the Almighty when it is their answers that will be judged. for Admission.

faith there is an answer is not the solution, Purity is when accomplished before the physiology expires. purity of good. extinction is failure, lack of (enough) faith.






Iceweasel said:


> Bullshit. If we were born with faith we would all worship the same thing.



well there is faith and not everyone worships the same, what we are not born with are the answers. answers needed for Admission to the Everlasting.

.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.
> 
> We made them up we can kill them just like we killed off Zeus and his minions


Zeus is no different than Elohim, Dynamos, Allah, or Brahman.

Each of these names is of the same Person.

He has lived since prehistory and He still lives today.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 31, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the gods came into existence when man became sentient.
> ...


Or the current god

we will leave that god behind as well eventually


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You are certainly not good at predictions, nor are you any good at revealing the past.

But you are very good at making up your own hollow myths.

You are a typical atheist who has not grasped that atheism is simply another faith based system.  Nothing better or worse.  Nothing different.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 31, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


I am looking at the historical trends of religion and beliefs and it is predictable 

New religions are superimposed on old religions gods are whittled down from many to one and eventually to none.

And FYI I'm more agnostic than atheist I personally believe we will never know for sure if there is a supreme being ( I don't like the word god ) but I do think as a species we will eventually give up the absolute belief that there is a god out there somewhere that cares about us


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


If you were truly "agnostic" then you would be more scientific about your statements.

Your statements are without any logical merit.

And you are just repeating yourself.  Repeating yourself without supplying any additional data is the fallacy of verbosity.

See below:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 31, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



So you deny that humans have discarded hundreds of gods in the past and you tell me I'm making shit up


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I am pointing out that your conclusion that all religions are invented by humans is a fallacy conclusion.  Technically it is a hasty generalization without any substantiation.

See the fallacy list again (you really need to memorize this list and stop purporting these fallacies if you want to stop being a redneck):

List of fallacies - Wikipedia


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 31, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



Religion is a human invention.  Religion did not exist before humans existed now did it?
If you want to say gods existed before humans you can since we cannot ever prove that.

Religion however is a human construct


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


verbosity.
Q.E.D.


----------



## jillian (Dec 31, 2016)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> 
> *snip dumbass' link*



no one cares what you take on faith. jihadi's believe as much in their religion as you do in yours. there is nothing "intellectual" about religion. it is visceral.

but thanks for playing


----------



## jillian (Dec 31, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



einstein's purported indiscretions are what you  think are memorable about him?

that explains so much.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 31, 2016)

Why is it that atheists never start these threads?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 31, 2016)

Tell me what makes more sense

Some supreme being spoke through a couple guys over 2000 years ago to give all of humanity its plan for us by setting forth a series of rules punishments and rewards

or

Religion was created by the ruling classes to control the masses

Occam's razor | philosophy


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

jillian said:


> einstein's purported indiscretions are what you  think are memorable about him?
> 
> that explains so much.


He was a really wacko duck.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Tell me what makes more sense
> 
> Some supreme being spoke through a couple guys over 2000 years ago to give all of humanity its plan for us by setting forth a series of rules punishments and rewards
> 
> ...


I like Occam's razor.  It is valid science.

But you are using it to set up straw men.

Besides the two hypotheses that you lay out above, there are plenty more.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 31, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me what makes more sense
> ...



according to you religion is a product of some supreme being for whose existence there is absolutely no empirical evidence
According to me religion is a man made institution created to control the masses

Mine is the more rational explanation


----------



## Czernobog (Dec 31, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Why is it that atheists never start these threads?


I started a couple of threads demonstrating the differences between atheism, and theism, and was attacked for "hating Christians".


----------



## hobelim (Dec 31, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




I suspect that if a superior intelligence gave humans the key to becoming a higher form of life and they disregarded it and became degenerate perversions of their highest potential, they wouldn't give a shit if that deliberately chosen and preferred way to approach life whatever it may be was full of suffering and torment.


----------



## Iceweasel (Dec 31, 2016)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Can you translate that into English? Thanks.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


The evidence is Creation itself.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


How so?  How is not believing empirical?


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2016)

NoNukes said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Sure, there's a distribution.  So what?  Humans have an innate need to worship something.  Even atheists.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Liar.

You are such a liar.

Or else your comprehension of the English language is not good.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


And yet we still believe.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



You like to point out fallacies

Calling me a liar does not make me a liar

You want to believe that some supreme being gave religion to humans
so you will believe that no matter what anyone else says


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



No it's not.

Just because we don't know how the universe was created, if it was actually created at all, does not mean some supreme being is responsible for it


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Observable evidence is needed for one to e empirical

the mere existence of something is only empirical proof that that thing exists it is not proof of anything else


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



And you will believe whatever you want regardless of anything anyone else says , whether there is evidence or not and that's your choice

I have made a different choice


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You being a liar makes you a liar.

Me pointing out that you are a liar is simply stating a fact.

Lies are untrue.

Liars tell lies.

You tell lies.

Ergo you are a liar.

Simple syllogism.  Even your weak frail mind should be able to grasp this.

Q.E.D.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I really do not see any evidence that you have made any choices, other than to engage in verbosity.

I would rather suspect that you were simply born an idiot.


----------



## NoNukes (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Not true. I worship nothing.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> It is a distinction with a difference. The distinction makes it not a statement of faith, but of fact.  Science* can* explain everything, as demonstrated over centuries of...well...*explaining everythin. *Every single phenomenon that religion tried to insist was suernatural?  Science expalined without resorting to myths, fables, and the supernatural.  So, yeah.  It's not a statement of faith; it is a statement of fact based on centuries of demonstrated evidence.


You keep making stupid comments thinking they will become factual with repetition. No, science can't explain everything or we wouldn't even have the discussion. You have no clue how the universe started so you cannot claim a secular cause with any credibility. You are simply proselytizing your faith while condemning those with faith. That's hypocritical and dimwitted.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


I have not told any lies

I just don't believe what you believe so you think I am a liar

You are incapable of considering other points of view but your own


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And you believe everything you are told without question

You are a mindless sheep


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Spam bot.

Ignore list.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


God forbid anyone challenges your blind belief , Little Sheep


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 1, 2017)

I love the way this looks now:

"Ignored Member".


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You are confusing evidence for proof.  If you create something tangible, it can be used as evidence.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Since the beginning of time, belief in a higher power has always existed and continues so today. The debate over the existence of God has always persisted too. You are not making a new argument.  

Your belief that man believes in God because of man's inability to explain the physical world around him is wrong.  It is man's ability to see order and connection which makes him believe in a higher power, not his inability to explain it.

I'm happy about your choice.  You seem to have a need to validate your choice.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It's embarrassing to watch you go through these semantic contortions to no effect.  I'm sure it's very difficult for you to hear that your primitive form of thought is based on the same kind of blind faith that has driven men for many centuries.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that atheists never start these threads?
> ...



When you throw water on someone in a deep sleep their reflex is to attack.

When you challenge those who maintain irrational beliefs with rational questions or well known facts, you become the enemy.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Might have been more interesting if he could even begin to examine his own thought processes.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I test everything.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




I know,  he seems to be set in the position that unless God reveals himself on CNN or can be examined under a microscope in a laboratory he must not exist..

Pretty stupid for someone who likes to think that he is smarter than everyone else.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

NoNukes said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


Alcoholics worship alcohol.  Drug addicts worship drugs.  Sex addicts worship sex.  Control freaks worship dominance.  I have yet to meet anyone who does not have some level of compulsion.  We all worship something.  It seems the only choice we have in the matter is in choosing what we worship.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


I agree.  It can also mean it isn't.  Other tests are required.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Nonsense. No one gives gifts or offerings or prays to any of those things expecting an eternal reward.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I find curiosity and objectivity to be extremely powerful tools at arriving at objective truth.  That and diversity of thought.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?


So your belief doesn't need to be rational. Thanks.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.


And some things science will never be able to explain.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


How do you explain it? By telling a story your ancestors made up?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


It would be, if that were true. Since you cannot provide the examples that I asked for, one can only assume it is because you kinow you can't.  That is the difference between faith, and observation.  You *have faith* that your mythical God will answer all of your questions in your mythical afterlife, whereas I *observe* that actual science answers quetions we have about the universe here and now, given time, and resources.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You mean it might be more interesting if I would agree to your preconcieved notions?  Sorry.  I prefer logic, and reason.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Except your preconceived notion of the existence of God.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Based on that simple logic:  You have faith that science can answer every unresolved question, eventually.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I know.  How stupid to expect evidence to accept the existence of a thing.  Now, excuse me while I ride off on my pink unicorn, to go have lunch with queen of the fairies, and the Bandersnatch, with Harry, Hermoine, and Ron.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


It must be a God? That's what you've concluded with no evidence? How scientific of you. And when that wasn't enough you had to make up that it visited moses? If that's not true neither is Christianity.

Anyways, "must be a God" is a ridiculous conclusion. It could be yes but must be no.

This is God of the gaps. If we discovered how the big bang started we will just fill that hole in like we have 1000s of other holes and you would continue arguing because how the big bang started was a natural event.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You have no idea what I believe; I haven't said.   You apparently have faith enough in your own perception to fill in the blanks.though.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


And your evidence of this is?  I'm sure there was a time when people thought it would be impossible to find a rational, scientific reason  for the sun rising, or for "demon possession".  Yet, eventually, it did - orbits, and epilepsy.  Observation, and experience demonstrates that science has always found rational explanations for everything that was once thought "supernatural".


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


All life crawled out of the water. Our original ancestors didn't need mommy's and daddy's. They multiplied on their own then eventually started mating.

Or do you believe God waved his hand and fully grown giraffe, porcupines, goats, dogs, tigers, snake, bird magically appeared.

Which theory do you believe?

First before you answer, only 1 is an actual theory


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I look forward to the day when science can answer this question:  What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I think God is impossible to disprove. They'll never prove he exists either because he doesnt


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


No.  Based on that logic I have *observed* that science answers every unresolved question, eventually.  I'm sorry that you are so ashamed of the fact that you allow emotion to override reason that you wnat to cram everyone into your tiny little worldview with you, but those of us who realy on reason, rationality, and science have no need for "fatih".  We will leave that you you theists, and your imaginary gods.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Exactly! Theists believe time and space didn't exist before the big bang. Of course it did.

And time and space lies beyond our one little universe.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Science has answered that question: It has said that those who think the universe began with the explosion of a singularity are wrong.  Your patience was rewarded.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


How do you know what I have done?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Science proves many things.  For example: Did you know that neuroscientists have recently come to some interesting conclusions about human brain activity based on extensive research experimentation?  It's now demonstrably certain that every human decision is influenced by emotion to one degree or another.   Based on the available science:  How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


I didn't say they did.  You can tell what someone worships by what they do.  Not by what they say.  Most people worship themselves to some extent or another.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That was hilarious.  Do you understand what you just wrote?  Your statement should be the poster child for confirmation bias.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


My patience is supposed to be rewarded with no answer?


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God.  They are like religious fanatics in this regard.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That's just it; I don't have to prove *non-existence*.  In science *non-existence* is the *standard.*  It's called the null hypothosis.  The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.  God is presumed to *not* exist, until objective evidence proves otherwise.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And you will never find that evidence unless you go looking for it which is why you are intellectually dead.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


When you ask the wtrong question?  Yes.  You want to know what happened before an event that never took place.  *Nothing happened*, because the event to which you refer (the Big Bang) never occurred in the first place.  What happened on the Tuesday before the Big Bang?  Nothing.  Because there was no Tuesday before the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God.  They are like religious fanatics in this regard.


Pop culture atheists don't actually think about what they think.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's called confirmation bias.  You do not go looking for evidence to fit a preconcieved belief.  You allow the evidence that exists to lead you to a conclussion. Intellectual death is abandonning reason, and trying to force evidence to support a belief that it does not support.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God.  They are like religious fanatics in this regard.


The point is wrong.  Intellectual exploration requires objective evidence.  Present objective evidence to the existence of God, and all atheists will universally abandon atheism.  No one has yet to provide that objective evidence.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


There wasn't?  Do mean to say Einstein was correct when he told LeMaitre the universe was static?


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I can make the exact same argument about you.  It is only confirmation bias if subjectivity is used.  My point was that if you never test your beliefs you are confirming your bias.  You practice critical theory which is the practice to criticize what you don't believe to validate what you do believe.  That process is inherently flawed.  You are confirming your bias.  To not confirm you bias you must objectively try to prove your beliefs wrong as I have done.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God.  They are like religious fanatics in this regard.
> ...


I disagree.  The fact that you don't explore what you don't know proves you are intellectually dead.  Intellectual death is the end of exploring for knowledge.  You are intellectually dead.  You are stuck on confirmation bias.  You justify your beliefs by criticizing what you don't believe without ever testing the validity of your belief.  I don't know how many more ways I can tell you this.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


No.  We have moved beyond an Einsteinian understanding of the cosmos.  I have already presented the latest understanding of the universe - including the new model using Bomian trajectories, replacing outdated geodesics. If you truly want to understand the nature of the universe, I suggest you start by looking at quantum physics.  It's not static, it cyclical - a closed loop.  No beginning, and no end.  And no need for God.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You've evidently missed the fact that you're talking about theoretical quantum physics.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It's apparent to me that your knowledge of science is all superficial.  Therefore any conclusions you might draw are based on your "faith" in scientific method.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?




BB is cyclical.

.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You know this how?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> The problem is there is no question and answer you can come up with that will prove God doesn't exist. When it can defy all logic and requires no proof what chance do you have?



one can prove christianity does not exist by removing its literature.

.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You know this how?




the observation of expansion from a central source, all matter is traveling at a _finite angle_ - the matter will return to its origin as a mirror image causing recompaction till the new singularity again causes its expansion. Boomerang Theory.

.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> Based on the available science: How do you know your own perceptions and thought processes aren't significantly influenced by your own emotional reactions to religion and faith?











ask anyone, I have been saying for years thought is not physiological CNS (central nervous system) you are the first at least to see light - unless you are typical fanatic that Flora is not an aspiring and _emotional_ living being admissible to the Everlasting.

nor chemo either. knowledge for the physiological genome is a dimension.

.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I see.  And your proof for this is what?


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You mean historical revisionism, right?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You've apparently missed the fact that your "Big Bang" is just as theoretical.  That's the thing about theories; they are held until evidence supports discording them for a more accurate theory.  "Big Bang" is yeaterday, and doesn't fit with new understanding of cosmic phenomenon.  Quantum loop is the new theory that better fits with observable phenomenon.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Says the guy who is holding on to outdated theories.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Care to provide a source for the research that suggests every decision is based on emotion?Contrary to your misconception, I have no emtional reaction to religion, or faith.  The only one here trying to irrationally assign "faith" to observation is you.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I see. And your proof for this is what?




ask the gunnery sargent, trajectory in a vacuum from a spherical expulsion .... how about it engineer, is all matter traveling in a straight line or en/mass accelerating to reconvene in unison 0.5(X)APEX (finite angle). the universe within the Cosmos.

.

.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You mean historical revisionism, right?



I'm serious bing, what are you that you have not read ... the spoken religion is the only means for communication with the Almighty. there is no intermediator. your book.

.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Let me know the day my comment is proven wrong.

And as for atheism being a dead end. That's life. All life leads to a dead end.

Atheism teaches us to appreciate the time you have now. Don't cope with a shitty life in hopes of an afterlife. That's what religion asks you to do.

What you pray for God will give go be able to cope in this world we live

She should have been praying to change her woes not cope with them. Anyways it's an arrestive development song and the lyrics stuck.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> I believe the point of this thread is that atheism is intellectually dead because atheism prevents people from intellectually exploring the existence of God.  They are like religious fanatics in this regard.


On the contrary. We've thought it all the way through. Most of us at one time believed a god existed even if we had problems with religion.

Evolution of atheism goes

1. Born and raised religious.
2. Young adult having a problem with religions but still believe a God exist
3. Agnostic
4. Agnostic atheist
5. Atheist.

It's what a smart human becomes. No magical thinking, wishful thinking, cognitive dissonance, cherry picking.

And knowing all that had to happen for you to have been born. I feel so lucky.

And we are OK saying we don't know.

All we know is like you don't buy Islam or Mormon bs, we reject your stories too. You don't call out Mormons because their delusion is harmless or so you think.

There's another phase it's the guilt an atheist feels when he stops talking to God. The first few times you feel guilty but if you truly believe it's nonsense then you have to stop talking to God. Stop sucking your thumb.

I love how sad no God would make people who choose to believe. Cute. Innocent lil lambs


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You're really not understanding this.   Are you.    It's not my theory, it's your faith based manner of thought that's in question here.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You aren't very inquisitive.   Try doing your own homework instead of waiting for your knowledge to be spoon fed.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The only theory I hang on to is the one about human behavior being so predictable.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


But look at how easily he is willing to give up on the big bang. 

Science is going with logic evidence and reason. Are you familiar with the scientific method? Your God doesn't survive it's test. The big bang turns out didn't either. But at one time it's what we believed.

I like our ever changing book of what we know. Much better than the old testament or new.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That reminds me of a thought I had the other day. We are just the smartest animal on this planet. We don't know if we are alone because we aren't smart enough to know that yet. We are still a very young new species just learning our place in the universe. We are very superstitious too. Look how people believe in angels ghosts and exorcisms.

Anyways, trilobites can stand extreme temperatures we can't.

Eagles see better, cheetah are faster, gorilla are stronger, deer hear better and dogs can smell better. Tortoise live 250 years

We are just animals.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Who's God are you talking about.  Perhaps you'd like to point out where I make any kind of reference to God anywhere in this thread.   Are all you pop culture atheists so afflicted with uncontrollable knee jerk?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Well does anyone know what you are saying?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yet with our barely evolved chimp brains humanity is apparently the perfect perceptor of all things.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Perfect? Wow. You think we are perfect? Did you see who we just elected?

We are not very smart and I think religion plays a part. Believing in nonsense is holding us back intellectually. If we believe Mary was a virgin we'll believe anything. Great example is how religious people don't typically believe in global warming. Why? Because God didn't prophecize it. How insane huh? But one example of how religion makes people dumb


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Or religious people don't believe evolution because it contradicts their nonsense


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Not really getting this either.  Are you.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



We don't know who or what created the universe or if it was created at all for that matter

The existence of a thing is not proof of anything but that it exists.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



The belief in gods stemmed from human fear which was brought on by ignorance of the workings of the natural world.  As we came to understand the world around us we discarded countless gods.

Now we only have 2 existential concepts to which we do not know the answer.
How did the universe get here and what if anything happens after we die

So we still have one god believed to be responsible for creation of the universe and who decides if you are eternally rewarded or punished after death

If we can ever explain the these concepts the last god will be discarded just like all the others

You can cop out intellectually and just say, "God did everything and that's all we need to know"

Or you can actually question everything and search for answers.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Pop culture atheists seem completely unaware of the fact that their thought processes are exactly like those of religious fundamentalists.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




Exactly  and they continue to deny it


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I understand perfectly.  You are so insecure in your faith in myths, and fairy tales, that you need to justify your irrational magical thinking by trying to assign your primitive thought processes on everyone else.  That's fine.  Feel free.  Just don't expect the rational people to make it easey by agreeing witth your flawed thought processes.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Rational people?  Let me know when you meet one.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Not my job.  You have made a claim about some alleged paper.  It is on you to provide surces for your claims.  Experience teaches me that when someone refuses to do that, it is because they are full of shit.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Only according to your primitive flawed thought processes.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Experience evidently hasn't taught you how to do your own research.   My theory is that you won't investigate anything that falls outside your small parameters of understanding or disputes your strident fundamentalist mindset.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You clearly wouldn't recognise a rational person when you met one, so no point, really...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Like all your other "theories" this one is based on preconcieved irrational presumptions.  You, however, make claims of alleged studies without any cited sources.  Which suggests that you are full of shit.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

You could read this, but you won't.  So I'll see if I can find something more your speed on Youtube.

 .https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/j...al_review_manuscript_june_16_final.final_.pdf


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Your response seems irrefutable evidence of your own ignorance.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Says the guy who makes up shit that he cannot provide evidence of.  You obviously either have no clear how these discussions work, or just don't care that no one will take you seriously.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


So you can't read as well.  That might be part of your problem.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

For lazy readers.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

The first video was probably a little too sophisticated for someone like you.   Try this abridged, dumbed down explanation.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Should you have any further questions regarding brain function or cognitive abilities I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 1, 2017)

You're welcome.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Don't be silly.  Of course there is.  The Holy Spirit.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Today is that day.  Atheism being equivalent to intellectual death is not the same thing as dying.

No.  Atheism does not teach you that.  Atheism makes you deify yourself.  Atheism's basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. You have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Your doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains the extraordinary attraction to socialist doctrines and its capacity to inflame individuals and inspire popular movements and condemn respect for any who believe in Christianity. Atheism leads to the practice of moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Atheism's hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity between a rival religion. Atheists can be identified by an external locus of control. Atheists worship science but are the first to reject it. 

Praying to God promotes thankfulness, humility and charity and alters the fabric of my identity to allow me to overcome obstacles and grow as a human being.  When we pray, God does not do it for us, He gives us the strength to do it for our self.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Our best understanding of the data tells us that it did have a beginning.  We live in a universe which has never had an uncaused event.  Therefore, there was a cause for the beginning.  We know that the universe is a self referential system and in many ways behaves like a brain.  We know that the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  We know that that potential existed when space and time cane into existence.  We know that everything that has happened since space and time came into existence was required for beings that know and create to arise.  We know from our own experiences that when we create something that it can be used as evidence to learn things about us.  For the life of me I have no idea of what evidence you have that something came from nothing without a cause or what you could possibly attribute that cause to.  Do you?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?




maybe an image will help you








Isaac Newton had the same problem, with people like you bing.

without garavity, the above example the trajectory traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its origin and reload itself in the guns breach. the same for the celestrial bodies from the moment of Singularity.

.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


How?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

bear513 said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We don't see it. 

And are you admitting religious fundamentalist are wrong or bad? How are you different from a Fundy?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I will investigate any claim you put forward.

What I won't do, or can't do, is believe something I don't believe. I can't make that leap of faith because I want to. That's wishful thinking.

We are investigating every word you put forward. Are you unhappy because we aren't buying it like you did? Sorry


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 1, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Where did you get all this? I have values and morality beyond mortal pleasures. Except abortion there's not much difference between what you and I believe. Maybe that's because it's common sense.

Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



If you want evidence of God you have to become a creature capable of perceiving God. The way is clear. Follow the instruction given in the law knowing that the words are figurative, the subjects hidden. Its easy. You probably are already doing much of it naturally. Do this, don't do that. Don't bow down and worship the work of human hands. Do not speak falsely in the name of God. Do not mislead others through religious deception. Do not eat the vile and contaminating teaching of unclean creatures that do not ruminate, think deeply. Do not mix dairy with meat meaning do not mix what is taught to sustain children with what is taught to adults who have teeth., etc., How hard is that?

Cleanse your thoughts. Purify your consciousness, what the ancients called the soul,  and be refined,  then diligently stand guard over the purity of your own mind for the rest of your days. Would you have a problem with that?

Do it and God will make himself known to you and you will have far more evidence than you can handle... If you apply an additional effort, you might even see the kingdom of God in power and find out what eternal life is before you die... .

You have something better to do?


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.


Moses said not to eat shrimp (prawns).

St. Peter said it was ok though.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


Someone had to create the Big Bang.

Just as Someone had to create the first amoeba.

Things don't just happen on their own.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Actually,  I have many,  many better things to do. You make my point for me. What you are promising is reduced to a simple formula: "Just accept that God exists with no evidence whatsoever,  and God will 'reveal' himself to you". It is the same promise that was given by every preacher I heard as a child,  and every teacher I listened to in seminary.

Well,  guess what?  I spent 20 years ignoring logic,  and reason,  and never did I find a single shred of *objective* evidence of the existence of God.  Did I,  at times,  feel good?  Yes.  Did good things happen that I could claim God did?  Sure.  But,  you see,  that's the scam,  isn't it?

When I get a good grade on an assignment,  thank God,  because God led me to that grade,  right?  Let's just ignore all of the effort,  and hours of studying that *I* put in to achieve that grade.  It was *God's will* that I get that grade. And if I get a bad grade?  Well...that's just me being tested.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with my not taking the time to prepare, right? 

That's the problem with your promise of "evidence". It's an empty promise.  It's a promise of *feeling*, and emotion,  not of actual objective evidence.  It's a promise of confirmation bias,  where,  because I insist that God exists,  then everything I see,  I find a way to make fit with my preconceived assumptions. 

Sorry.  I will not be convinced that way.  I will never *believe* in God,  absent evidence; you are going to have to show me evidence of the existence of God. I do not work on faith;  I work on what I observe. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Says who? 



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  You don't.  You have relative values which are subject to change.  Those aren't values.  Those are conveniences.  You keep making silly littel fringe arguments which have no bearing on the subject.  Shrimp?  Really?  Shrimp?  When you can tell me that you believe it is wrong to end a human life, let me know, Ok?  Then I'll change my opinion on your lack of values.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory.  Do you have any fucking proof?  The only proof we have is for the beginning.  Do you need for me to show it to you so that you can understand the difference between proof and theory?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Our best understanding may not be that good you know.

It is arrogance to think we are even capable of understanding everything in the universe. We do not fully understand the human brain either.


Just like it is arrogance to believe we are created in the image of some god


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Than waste my time searching for a god that no one can find scientific evidence of?  Yeah I have plenty of better things to do


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it.  Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it.  Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning?  Yes or no?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...




I see it in you everytime you have a hissy fit in atheist threads. 

Which is all the time.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So... You believe it wrong to end a human life?  Period,  full stop?  Sure you want to make such a definitive statement?  Because,  if so,  it will take about 2 seconds for me to demonstrate that you are either a moron,  or a liar. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Hence your emotional reaction to religion.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Here's a question science will never answer:   Can moral decisions about the use of science be determined using scientific method and research evidence?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> What I won't do, or can't do, is believe something I don't believe. I can't make that leap of faith because I want to. That's wishful thinking.
> 
> We are investigating every word you put forward. Are you unhappy because we aren't buying it like you did? Sorry


If you are an atheist then you are making a claim you can't back up. No amount of grandstanding can change it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot


----------



## hobelim (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




No,  whatever preacher influenced you as a child told you to just believe. Thats not what I am suggesting.

I am not saying for you to just believe in God and then you will feel good. I am not suggesting that you must  join a religion or accept the existence of God without any evidence. That would be a scam.

Obviously your mind has been affected by your experiences with religion. You say you will never believe in God absent of evidence. I wouldn't either. You say you work on what you observe but then dismiss my suggestion to purify your thoughts so that you might actually be capable of observing evidence of God.


As a scientist would you conduct an experiment to determine the truth of something without first sterilizing and calibrating the instruments that will be used to test the theory and measure the results?

Can a scientist rely on any conclusion based on what was seen through a filthy lens?


Purify your mind and you will see God, not as a figment of an unrestrained imagination but as a living being whose existence is absolute.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Define the process of purifying thoughts?

Or do you define it accepting god then your thoughts will be pure?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I can purify my thoughts and still not see any gods


----------



## hobelim (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




Picture your consciousness as a vast ocean with all sorts of thoughts swimming around every which way like fish beneath the surface.

Take a great net and throw it into that sea and catch every thought,belief, unsubstantiated assumption, prejudice, and opinion in that net and drag it to the shore. Then methodically separate the good from the bad,  keep the good thoughts like fish in a bucket and throw the worthless ones away.


It will take time, but when you are done, your mind will work like a brand new computer restored to its intended capabilities swept clean of every bug and malware that has been hacked into your thought processes,  keeping you blind and preventing you from achieving your highest potential..

Then you will not only become a creature capable of perceiving the living God like Jesus who said, I am only doing what I see God doing,  but when you look back in time you will see that evidence of God has already been presented to you for your entire life.

.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



I meditate daily have for years.
I can quiet my mind and drop my heart rate by 10 BPM in a good session

I do not see god.  I do not hear god. 
You want to believe and for those that don't you just think their minds are in chaos


----------



## hobelim (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




I didn't say anything about quieting your mind,I said purify your thoughts.

Many times when two people are standing on a street corner and witness an accident they see two entirely different things,one might not even see a thing..

Yes, what is seen or not seen has everything to do with the state of mind of the witness.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



Or the attention given to the event

You cannot assume that the 2 witnesses were both paying attention to the accident

One might have seen the 1 second before the accident  looked away then picked up the action at the 3rd second and the other may not have started paying attention until after the the 5th second


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


What emotional reaction?  Why do you keep trying to project your thoughts,  feelings,  and reactions onto me? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No, science doesn't deal with questions of morals,  of ethics.  However,  religion is not needed for those questions either.  Any person who needs an authority figure - whether it be government,  or religion - to dictate behaviour for them in order to behave in a moral,  ethical fashion is clearly devoid of either morals,  or ethics. 

I need no outside authority to dictate right from wrong for me;  I am quite capable of determining that for myself. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


That's just it;  evidence either exists,  or it doesn't.  It doesn't require a pure heart to be seen. I don't need a pure heart,  or mind,  to see the evidence of gravity.  I need only drop a ball.  I can be as pure as a saint,  or as vile as a paedophile,  and the evidence will be exactly the same.

Nothing that requires the "right mind-set" to experience is real,  nor objective. Guess what?  If I take the right drugs I'll hear God's voice.  That isn't real,  either.

Either God exists,  and there is objective evidence to support that claim,  or he doesn't,  and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists,  that means,  by definition,  that it is observable by everyone,  period.  Full stop.  Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


But we do have evidence.  What He created can be used as evidence.  You keep confusing proof for evidence.  Clearly. if at a later date you meet God, He will point to what He created as evidence for His existence, right?  Your problem is that you don't accept this evidence as proof, but you keep illogically believing that there can be no evidence.  If you start with the belief that everything is connected to reach a goal or serve a purpose, then you must evaluate everything as evidence before a finding of fact (i.e. proof) can be made.  You are intellectually dead because you make no effort to do so.  You just dismiss it all.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes, I believe it is wrong to end a human life at all times.  Please proceed.  It's not like I have not already thought this through.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


That's not what I asked.  I asked you if you understood the evidence behind the belief that the universe had a beginning.  Yes, the big bang is widely accepted as the beginning.  What evidence supports this?  Are you even aware of this evidence?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




Your logic is impeccable except you haven't included in your speculations that for a living being to qualify as God it would have to be incorporeal. Microscopes, telescopes, test tubes and beakers are consequently worthless.

For a human being to accurately perceive that which is incorporeal he would have to purify what is incorporeal in him, the conscious mind.

For everyone to have hold of objective evidence everyone would just have to stop screwing up each others minds.

Its a jungle out there.....Get real.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Either God exists,  and there is objective evidence to support that claim,  or he doesn't,  and there isn't.
> 
> And if such objective evidence exists,  that means,  by definition,  that it is observable by everyone,  period.  Full stop.  Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.


Your problem is that you need to greater simplify the question in order to hold your view. The fact is we are here. The universe exists. You have no answers and can only quote various theories. All are potential possibilities to the atheist, except god. Atheists are among the most fundamentalist believers out there.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


There's another word for what you are descibing - imagined.  Gracvity is "incorporeal" as you put it.  There is nothing to see, touch,taste, or smell.  Yet, it is possible to observe gravity in action.  It is posible to test for the existence of gravity, and to repeat the effects of gravity, and no "purity of spirit" necessary.  Either a thing exists, or it doesn't.  If it only exists for those "in the right mind-set" then it isn't real; it is the product of one's imagination.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Are you going to school me on this or not?  I'm still waiting.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Let me re-phrase my question for you.  Scientific evidence exists for the belief that the universe began through an event called the big bang.  Do you know what this scientific evidence is?  Yes or no?  Now do you understand the question?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yeah, you keep trying that, and failing.  You wanna try again, or are you just going to concede here?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Either God exists,  and there is objective evidence to support that claim,  or he doesn't,  and there isn't.
> ...


Not true.  God is absolutely a possibility.  It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.  The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception.  The atheist will concede the *possiblity* of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I am waiting for you to acknowledge that this is your position.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


You're right.  I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for *you* that's fine.  However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God *for atheists*.  I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists *for atheists*.  *The atheist* will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. *The atheist* will concede the *possiblity* of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, *for the Atheist*.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




See post #269.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Can you explain where I failed in the logic that I wrote in post #268?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Right, then.  So, it is your position that war is wrong under any, and all circumstances?  Really?  Killing Osama Bin Laden was wrong?  Really?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


And cherry pick. Because you will decide some of the rules are OK to break. And you'll learn you can break rules as long as you are a member. For example if you eat a shrimp God will forgive. And you can interpret things the way it suits you.

And if you do all these things eventually you'll convince yourself God is real and even if he's not you'll feel too guilty to even think it. Better to be safe than sorry.

Many people believe in God but do none of the things you suggest. How come belief comes so easy for so many who aren't doing these things?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yep.  Killing is wrong but we will still do it.  No need to justify that it was right.  It is possible for honest men to do dishonest things and still be honest men.  It is possible for moral men to do immoral things and still be moral men.  It is only through rationalization that moral men become immoral.  If you killed someone who was raping your wife you would feel two things; you would feel relief for helping your wife and you would feel remorse for killing a man.  If you didn't, you should question what kind of man you are.  It is rationalization which leads men to continue to do evil.  If we stop the rationalizing then our behaviors change and we would all be moral and have no need for killing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Jews used to not be allowed to eat shrimp. Today they can eat shrimp. I guess they do whatever makes them feel good too even though their God specifically said don't eat shrimp.
> ...



If the old testament is flawed why believe the spin-off?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Someone? That's pretty vague. Is that how you concluded there must be a God?

Then you should also believe the thing that created the universe is a natural thing. In other words no God necessary. Your parents created you right? So everything created has a natural source. Something physical and explainable created it. For example we come from stars. So we know how the moon got there. No God had to poof it there. 

Just cause you don't know what creates universes doesn't mean a God. 

And of course your God doesn't need a creator, right?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


The problem is that you are being overly simplistic:







An "Agnostic" is njust an atheist who is trying to be diplomatic.  Atheists, whether they are an agnostic atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist, are still atheists.  They're default position is that there is no God, and requobjective evidence to be persuaded to nmove from that position.  You seem to think that Atheists are absolute, and immovable in teir position.  They're not.

Welll...I mean, most of us are, but only because ini the some 3-million-year history of the existence of man, no objective evidence has yet been provided to prove the existence of divinity.  So, it's not that we are *unwilling* to be moved from our position by objective evidence; rather it is that we have a well-earned skeptisicm that such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

However, we atheists, whether gnostic, or agnostic, are more than willing to assess any objective evidence when provided.  We're just waiting for that objective evidence.  I am an atheist.  I am also more than willing to concede that I was mistaken about my atheism, just as soon as someone provides me with actual objective evidence of the existance of divinity.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are quite right.  There is such evidence.  Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and *cannot* account.  Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory.  Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm not the one that needs pictures to express my position. You can spin but you can't change any facts. If you make statements you can't back up you are making a declaration of faith. You can't say there is no god with any credibility. If you do you are insane, dishonest or not particularly bright.

You have self identified yourself as an agnostic so I'm going with dishonest.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So the moral thing for America, and the American president to do in 1941 would have been to do nothing, and allow Hitler to take over Europe, and continue his genocide of Jews?  Really?  That would have been moral?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> You are quite right.  There is such evidence.  Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and *cannot* account.  Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory.  Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?


"Being replaced"? That's another statement of faith.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


I *haven't* identified myself as agnostic *you* have, because you want to justify your hatred of atheists.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No, and I don't care to know because it does not change the fact that the universe had a beginning.  It is the beginning and all that has happened since the beginning that is the evidence.  Not what happened before it.  None of our equations will ever be able to prove what happened before the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second.  No observations we ever be able to tell us what cause the beginning.  All that we know is that there was a beginning and that that beginning has not been eternal or infinite in time.  There is a finite expansion of the universe at this point in time.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I never said I hated atheists. You're a liar. And if you'll recall I started out saying atheists were liars. You said you recognize the possibility of a god, that makes you an agnostic. That's English. Learn it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > You are quite right.  There is such evidence.  Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and *cannot* account.  Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory.  Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?
> ...


If you say so...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Uh, no it didn't, that is rather the point.  No beginning, no need for God.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory.




the trajectory of celestial matter is a loop, en mass, in unison along a finite angle and answers the question what happened the Tuesday before Singularity, matter was still compacting ... if bing got this far it also explains how the BB is cyclical.

.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


You're attitude towards atheists is clear in your misrepresentation of who atheists are, and your assumption that you know how "all athiests" think.  Just because you want to dishonestly pretend like you have no animosity, it doesn't mean that the animosity isn't obvious.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Besides abortion give me another example of how your religion makes your values different than mine. Did you wait to be married before you had sex? Did you divorce? Ever cheat? Lie? Steal? These are all things I know are wrong but many Christians do these things


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



God told your religions founders that eating shrimp was wrong. Your values have changed. 

Popes now forgive abortions.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


A scientific theory is as close to a fact as you are going to get to a fact. God isn't even a common theory because there's zero evidence. God is a hypothesis at best


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That is an overly complex rationalization.  The only real belief is of if there is a higher power.  Different faiths do not matter.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I wouldn't feel bad killing a man who raped my wife. In fact I would hope to torture him before he died. OK there's another way you might be a better person than me


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Did your moral values evolve in isolation?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


In the context of evidence for the existence of God, it most certainly does matter.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Sorry, but there is no evidence for what happened before one trillionth of one billionth of a second for what happened before space and time came into existence.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The real question then would be if you would later feel remorse for doing so.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


We can never know what was before the big bang. What we do know is either time and space are infinite. Either thats true or there is no infinite God either.

Our universe is but one little universe. Our sun is but one little star. Our planet is just one little planet.

There was a time not too long ago we didn't know we were just one planet surrounding one sun. We thought we were special and that there must be a purpose. There is. Live well and prosper


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Like to suggest we're all socialists or commies. Tell that to Ayn rand


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The difference is that I have learned to not rationalize wrong as a right.  I was and am no saint.  It is about the progression and journey towards being a saint.  I don't claim to be there.  I just don't claim to rationalize when I'm not.  That act in and of itself is responsible for progressing.  A bad man does not know he is bad.  Only a good man knows how bad he is.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Hey


Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Hey skull, ding says atheists are socialists and commies. Tell him you arent


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Amusing yourself is not progressing yourself.  You don't harm me with your behavior, just yourself and the ones you love.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> Did your moral values evolve in isolation?





Constructive Anarchy said:


> I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?


_*

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?*_


it does seem yours have ... between the covers of a book.

.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Hey
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Actually, it is militant atheism which leads to communism.  I don't always add that caveat.  Shoot me.  Considering that you are a militant atheist, I'm pretty sure you'd like that.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


God is supernatural.  Science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural.  Your religion of atheism is based as much on faith as mine is, I just have a good reason for my faith, whereas you don't.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Feel free to elaborate Socrates.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Ayn Rand was a conservative.  You're not.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


You didn't answer either of my questions.


A. When you say we are "no better" than religious fundamentalists, what is it you don't like about religious fundys?

B. How do you differ from a religious fundamentalist?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That is a deep question with significant implications.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Militant atheists like yourself are no better than religious fundamentalists because you are religious fundamentalists.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What I won't do, or can't do, is believe something I don't believe. I can't make that leap of faith because I want to. That's wishful thinking.
> ...


But then theists like ding get mad when we admit that and say we are agnostic atheists.

And if you are a theist you are making a claim you can't back up. True or not?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


What's the point? That I was raised in a religious society? So we're the Taliban so what's the point?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


What's wrong with religious fundamentalists?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Remember when Christians could own slaves?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The moral thing would have been to not rationalize that it was a moral thing.  Why?  Because it gets easier and easier the more one does so.  Admit that what you are doing is not moral and that you knowingly choose to do it anyway is the better of the two options.  That is the highest standard.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


As opposed to what?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


They act like you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yes I had a friend who survived a crash and he saw an angel. The angel said "look out"


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don't get mad at anything you do, say or think.  There is nothing in this world that you can do to me to harm me.  I am the only one who has that power.  I could not be happier for you to experience the predictable surprises your behavior will bring.  Seriously.  I also don't rationalize that I am wrong for being happy about it.  I know that is wrong of me.  But then again, I also know that you won't change your ways until you reach rock bottom.  That is human nature.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Because it's not evidence. It's all dismissible.

If I was a judge and you a DA ID ask you for more evidence.

You say, "he did it your honor here's the gun that was used", but was that my gun? My fingerprints on it? Do I know the victim? My DNA? Any witnesses? Did ii confess? Catch me on camera? No!

But you say to the judge, " yea but look your honor here is the gun!"


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Given what you just wrote, I'm pretty sure the point would be beyond your grasp and it would be a waste of time to explain it to you.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.



Constructive Anarchy said:


> Feel free to elaborate Socrates.


 



Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?




what fault is different between the two, especially the book readers ... Spiritual atheist being the dumb.

.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


You did not follow the logic of the condition.  If you had you would have recognized the condition which was established.  Then it would have made more sense to you and you wouldn't have wasted your time writing a response that made no sense.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


I can't wait to see you in heaven so I can tell you I told you so that belief didn't matter. Just be a good person. And don't judge lest ye be judged hallelujah

Or when I see you in hell where bin ladin and his boys are raping us for eternity and I can say "holy shit they were right"


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Are they anything like lipstick liberals?

Sorry I don't believe your ancient religion or the 999 other ones and I don't believe in ghosts or fortune tellers either. Do you?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You don't believe in heaven.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I haven't said what I believe or don't believe.   That isn't the point.  The point is that Atheism as a philosophy represents no actual evolution or advancement of thought itself.   Humanity has more information to work with and thus more knowledge than it did when Bronze Age religions were formed.   However, there exists no evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are any smarter than they were tens of thousands of years ago.  Thought patterns and processes that determine human behavior haven't changed.  People are no more or less intelligent overall.   Small wonder that people naturally continue to believe that the most recent discoveries and revelations are always correct and true.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Agreed.  We know more, but I wonder if our reliance on technology has not made us dumber.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There have been studies that show overall human intelligence decreasing worldwide.  I'm not sure what the basis for that is though.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Over reliance on technology would be my guess.  The brain needs to work to get stronger.  If we supply our body with an outside supplement that it naturally produces our body will shut down that function.  I don't see why the grain would be any different.  In fact, studies have shown that watching television shuts down the reasoning portion of our brain.  Whereas other studies have shown that when we engage our brains in random acts of kindness, being thankful and being reflective our minds become trained for happiness.  Dopamine serves two purpose; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of our brain and improves our performance in everything.  It seems that success does not lead to happiness; happiness leads to success.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival.   Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That reminds me of an except from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address:

"I hope that no one present will suspect me of expressing my partial criticism of the Western system in order to suggest socialism as an alternative. No; with the experience of a country where socialism has been realized, I shall not speak for such an alternative....

But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just enumerated are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human personality in the West while in the East it has become firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. The complex and deadly crush of life has produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting personalities than those generated by standardized Western well-being. Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant points.

Of course, a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to stay on such a soulless and smooth plane of legalism, as is the case in yours. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits, introduced as by a calling card by the revolting invasion of commercial advertising, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to numerous observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are telltale symptoms by which history gives warning to a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, a decline of the arts or a lack of great statesmen. Indeed, sometimes the warnings are quite explicit and concrete. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing steadily in accordance with its proclaimed social intentions, hand in hand with a dazzling progress in technology. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically: the Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man's physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

Everything beyond physical well-being and the accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtle and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any higher meaning. Thus gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today. Mere freedom per se does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and even adds a number of new ones.

And yet in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century's moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...



The natural world is only evidence of a god if you assume a god created it

I assume no such thing


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I answered that.

The BB is only a theory.  It is a theory that fits with our observation of the universe.  It has not been conclusively proven

But a theory is all it is

God is a theory as well


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Once again you assume the big bang is a proof it is not it is a theory derived from our observations of the universe.  There is no actual proof the big bang ever happened


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


an agnostic can also say they have science on their side as well since there is no scientific proof that a supreme being exists an agnostic reserves making a judgement until such evidence is provided


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



No theories are disproved quite often

Some have neither been proven nor disproved yet and exist as a best explanation of observable phenomena but they are still merely theories nonetheless


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


we don't even know for sure there was a big bang


----------



## Mudda (Jan 2, 2017)

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 2, 2017)

.


> CA: _Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival. Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc._


_
_
*Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought ...*


that does not exist - 

what has that to do with your OP's video in praise of christianity, their 4th century book and concludes atheism represents only 16% of the worlds population as being a vacuous influence ... just maybe the reformations never went far enough is why the OP is left seemingly Spiritually dead and the real reason for atheism existence. 

.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Just evidence that suggest a bb happened. Theists go one step farther. They assume a God was behind the bb. God of the gaps. We just haven't filled in that gap get. 

Maybe eventually black holes start universes? We don't know what's on the other side of a black hole or that black holes are really what we think they are. Just a lot of science behind them. Maybe that's where heaven is. Or where God lives.

Are we talking to believe God impregnated Mary or a theist who believes in a generic creator.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


God is not a theory at least not a scientific one. He's a hypothesis


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.


That's why I'm an agnostic atheist


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Did ding tell you atheists are naturally socialists and commies?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


That's kind of the point I'm making.  Iceweasel wants to try and draw a distinction between agnostics, and atheists, and I am pointing out that there really isn't one.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> > CA: _Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival. Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc._
> ...


Where in the OP was there a praise of Christianity or anything else?  Do all you pop culture atheists have this problem with constant uncontrollable knee jerk?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's the point.  Your entire cosmological argument for the existence of God is "There was a beginning, therefore there must have been a God to begin the universe.  However, with the Quantum Gravity Loop there is no actual beginning.  So, with no actual beginning, there is no one to "begin" the universe, now is there?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And therein lies your problem.  Your mythical God exists in the same realm as ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick.  Do you accept the existance of all of those, as well?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Sooo...you're okay with atheists...just so long as they are conservatives?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You keep talking about "pop culture atheists".  What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So, stopping a man committing genocide was an *immoral thing*?  Like I said...exposed as a moron.  Such absolutism is moronic.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Like any other social phenomenon these days days, pop culture atheists are multiplied by mass media, TV and Youtube are filled with glib pseudo intellectual philosophers.  None the less their understanding of religion remains as superficial as their understanding of science.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such.  You have no idea of my history,  or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


If only religion could use these social medias to gain membership, you know they would.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's just it.  The condidtion you set is to first accept that God created the universe.  Then, the universe can be used as "evidence" for the existance of God.  Your "condition" is called a circular arguement.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


So then you were either wrong about atheism leading to communism or you were lying. As a good person with absolute morals please admit which you were. We're you wrong or lying? Remember gods listening. Be honest


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.


No one has ever suggested that God *can't* exist.  Only that the default presumption is that God *doesn't* exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


A militant atheist will passionately debate you. A religious fundamental will kill an atheist.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.
> ...


And are we talking Abraham God or generic God? I'm pretty atheistic when it comes to the God who visited. Generic God I'm more agnostic atheist


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything.  If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I understand.  However, were you presented with objective evidence that the "God who visited" existed, would you change your position?  That is my point, atheists do not argue that God *can't* exist; only that God *doesn't* exist, until object evidence proves otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Pick up a rock. That rock is evidence God exists. All the evidence you need. Right ding? Because all things need a creator that rock means God exists. God are humans smart


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's a little more than that, but I'm sure your heart was into it and you were not trying to intentionally chase an intellectual deadend.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


So where exactly do you believe you can find this object evidence you aren't seeking?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Modern history says it is the other way around.  It is not even close either.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Thanks for the reminder.  No.  I'm not lying.  History proves it to be true that militant atheism, like the kind you are practicing, does lead to communism.   Militant atheism which is based on the deification of man is radicalism, radicalism will to surrender to socialism, and socialism is only an anarchy overthrow away from communism.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  I am working backwards to show you that IF God exists, then what He has created WILL be the evidence you are not seeking.  So IF you later discover that you were wrong, you would have had no excuse for YOUR error because what He has made is plain for all to see.  If you were seeking it, you would test it to see if it made sense that He created it, but you aren't.  Given that God is supernatural, you will never find proof of His existence in the natural world, you will only find indirect evidence of His existence by what He has created.  So, you are pursuing an intellectual dead end waiting for direct evidence of a supernatural being in a natural realm that you know will never be found.  And since that is your plan and since you know that plan will never work, you are taking it on faith that He does not exist.  You are hiding behind a belief in science that you know will never be able to disprove your confirmation bias.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You didn't understand anything I wrote, did you?  First of all, you have no basis for moral or immoral.  What you are calling moral is really a preference because you have no concept of absolute good.  I do.  As such, I don't rationalize doing wrong as doing right.  I adhere to a higher standard than you do.  The act of not rationalizing keeps me attached to the absolute moral.  Your worldview will and has justified a great many atrocities.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  I'm ok with atheists either way.  I couldn't care less because I know there is a law of compensation at work which will eventually correct all errors.  It is only a matter of time.  I have no preference for an outcome because I have peace.  I accept things the way they are.  You don't and I doubt you ever will until right before you die.  Each of us are on our own journey.  We collide with each other, yet our accountabilities stay with us.  Nothing you do can harm me.  Only I can harm myself.  I have a soul and I have my faith.  What do you have?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Why should I?  I believe in angels and demons and that demons were angels.  I believe I don't want to meet either of them in this world.  I believe in guardian angels.  I believe that the Holy Spirit whispers in a very soft voice and can soften the hearts of others and carries one bad ass monster of a stick.  I believe in intercessory prayers.  I believe that the power of confession, forgiveness, thankfulness and dying to self is more powerful than anything you will ever possess and leads to happiness and success.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Then you are unlikely to find God in this world.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


No.  You didn't answer it.  You have no idea of what evidence exists for the big bang theory.  If you did, you would have explained it to me, but you can't because you don't have a clue as to what that evidence is.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Do you know what evidence exists that proves that the universe is not infinite?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.
> ...


No. You are not.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Not my job.  You want to prove that God exists, *you* find the objective evidence, and present it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


*If *God existed, then what he created would certainly be *further* evidence of his existence.  However, before you can use the universe as evidence of God's existencve based on the assumption that God created the universe, you must first prove that:

a) God exists, and

b) that it was, in fact, God that created the universe.

Since you have done neither, the universe as your "evidence" of the existence of God is useless.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That is a lie.  It is your absolutism that justifies calling stopping Hitler wrong.  In a world of your design, no one would have done anything to stop Hitler, and an entire race of people would have met with genocide.  How would you justify sitting back and allowing that?  The only thing necessary for the *triumph* of *evil* is for *good men* to *do nothing*.  And yet that is precisely what you would have had all good men do in response to Hitler's atrocities - nothing.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You didn't answer my question.Do you believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick? Yes, or no.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> Where in the OP was there a praise of Christianity or anything else? Do all you pop culture atheists have this problem with constant uncontrollable knee jerk?




the OP video "Why Atheism is Vacuous Grandiloquence"

why is it there, what is your point ...


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That would be beyond God's control, lol.  Don't blame Him for diversity of thought.  We do have free will after all.  The interesting thing though is the thing that you point to as a reason to not believe in God is in reality a reason to believe in God which is man's persistent belief in believing in God.  Don't kid yourself either, you are not making a new argument here.  For as long as there have been men who believe in a higher power there have been people like you making arguments to not believe in a higher power.  So one must wonder why has man persisted in this wholly irrational belief, right?  The answer is simple, natural selection.  It is hard wired into us.  Maybe your wires got crossed or your genes have not kicked in yet.  There's really no telling.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't really care enough to make it my job to convince you.  Sorry.  I have proven to myself that God exists.  You don't accept it.  I'm cool with that.  I don't need to validate my beliefs through your non-belief.  That's what you are doing here, brother.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Nope.  That's not how it works.  First comes observations, then comes the hypothesis and then comes the test.  You have it exactly backwards.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I did answer your question.  My answer was.... Why should I?  Was that beyond your intellect to grasp that I don't believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, and magick?  I then went on to tell you what beliefs I had in the supernatural world, right?


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I don't believe in him but the diversity is because the bible is so vague, unclear and contradictory. Since Christians attribute the teachings of the bible to God then yes God would be responsible for any ambiguity found within it.




> We do have free will after all.


 Even when it comes to God's law? 


> The interesting thing though is the thing that you point to as a reason to not believe in God is in reality a reason to believe in God which is man's persistent belief in believing in God.


This makes no sense. I will allow you to explain yourself on this.


> Don't kid yourself either, you are not making a new argument here.  For as long as there have been men who believe in a higher power there have been people like you making arguments to not believe in a higher power.


 I didn't claim it was new. Nice deflection. There have also been people like yourself rejecting one man's hugher power for your own higher power.


> So one must wonder why has man persisted in this wholly irrational belief, right?


 The belief in a higher power or a god. That is easy. Fear, Child indoctrination and manipulation, lack of responsibility, tradition, comfort and assurance on death and the afterlife... many many more reasons.


> The answer is simple, natural selection.  It is hard wired into us.


No, the fear of death is the main reason. Nothing else. 





> Maybe your wires got crossed or your genes have not kicked in yet.  There's really no telling.


keep telling yourself that


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system".   Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise.  Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them.  Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind,  comprises no actual beliefs.  They only know what they don't believe.  Is that clear enough for you?  Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The density of pop culture atheists skulls is only matched by the shallow, obtuse, dishonesty of their responses.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Just because you don't understand something does not mean it isn't true.

Yes, we have free will even when it comes to God's law.  We have free will to choose between good and evil.  Of course that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.  Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind.  It promotes order and harmony. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success. Lack of virtue, not so much.  Failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure.  So while we are free to choose between the two, our actions will have consequences.  He would not give us a way to figure out when we were doing good versus doing bad and rationalizing we were doing good.

I did not claim you said it wasn't new nor was it meant as a deflection.  It was meant to show that what you believed invalidated God, really validates God. 

You are seeing what you want to see.  I suggest you go research the morality progression by Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg.  What you are describing are the 1st 4 stages of the progression.  What the Bible and religion teaches is the last two stages of the progression.  Of course, I can understand your confusion in reading the Bible.  The Bible is effectively a how to Book.  How to live and how not to live.  It can be confusing.  It is also an account of a people who cycled between remembering His ways and forgetting His ways and what happens to them as they bounce back and forth. 

Birth is a forgetting and death is a remembering.  As you approach death, it will be made clear to you that He was always the matrix.  Science tells us that the energy and matter that make up you was created when the universe was created. 

Of course I will keep telling myself that because I believe it.  It isn't your time yet and it may never be your time.  No one knows but God.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The relativist moral philosophy of Socrates and Aristotle is what ultimately leads to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Wrong again.  Atheism isn't like religion.   But the human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yet,  it was the absolute moralism of Ding's that led him to insist that going to war to stop Hitler was wrong (immoral). 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I don't disagree with CA.  Atheists don't have beliefs per se.  They have arguments against others having beliefs.  God can no more be creation than a painter can be a painting.  Looking for proof of God's existence won't be found in the natural world as God is a supernatural being who is not part of our space and time.  Atheists require scientific proof of God's existence.  That just isn't possible.  The best we can do with science is to study what He has created and use that as indirect evidence for His existence. Atheists reject that concept.  They argue that we cannot assume that God exists before we can use what He has created as evidence.  The problem with that is that it is exactly backwards.  That's not even how science works.  Science begins by making observations and then formulating an idea of why it is the way it is and then they test that.  Atheists on the other hand refuse to test its validity and instead use critical theory arguments to criticize what they don't believe to validate what they do believe.  Which by the way can never be proven in the way they want because God is a supernatural being.  They have a false belief that they are being critical thinkers but they are not.  Critical thinking is when you challenge what you do believe to test its validity.  So... atheists don't have beliefs (i.e. critical thinking).  They have arguments (i.e. critical theory) against the beliefs of others, but in no way do they have a belief system that they can test.  The reality is that believing or not believing is based on a leap of faith.  Interestingly enough, the definition of faith is having trust in something.  Atheists have trust in nothing.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That's his problem.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yep.  That's right and you still could not grasp my logic or if you did, you have no valid response to it.  Let me clarify it further for you... when man justifies his behaviors on what is moral rather than the highest possible standard, he has normalized his deviance to that standard and is apt to continue to move the goal posts.  I did not say we should not go to war to stop Hitler.  I said we should not hold ourselves as being morally righteous in doing so.  That is how tyranny starts.  One inch at a time.  One deviation from the standard at a time.  Unfortunately, pea brain size talking monkeys must be spoon fed crap to validate their actions even though no real validation is required.  We could have just as easily said that us going off to kill other men is wrong but we are going to do it anyway.  We will feel bad for doing it, but we will do evil to stop a greater evil.  Now do you understand?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Actually it was the missing piece of the puzzle for me.  I love solving puzzles.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No one on earth chooses to follow the complete Law of the Bible. Do you consider all people evil or is it OK just to pick and choose certain passages in the Bible?



> Of course that doesn't mean there aren't consequences.


 Consequences for what? Be specific.


> Virtue is the greatest organizing principle known to mankind.


 Yet in traditional Christian angelology, Virtue is the seventh highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy.


> It promotes order and harmony. Successful behaviors will naturally lead to success. Lack of virtue, not so much.  Failed behaviors will naturally lead to failure.


Ones interpretation of success and failure are different from others. There are people on this planet who are ruthless, corrupt, greedy and irresponsible and yet they are idolized by many.


> So while we are free to choose between the two, our actions will have consequences.


 Like I said. the consequences are always different. Look at it this way. Most people consider slavery to be wrong. Today owning a slave would be considered a failed behaviour. There was once a time for a lot of Christian devotees when owning a slave was considered a successful behaviour.



> He would not give us a way to figure out when we were doing good versus doing bad and rationalizing we were doing good.


But you do know when you are doing good without God. How many people throw rocks at people for growing improper rows in their garden. Do we stone to death anyone who works on Sunday? Of course not. We as humans figured that these bible laws were wrong on our own.



> I did not claim you said it wasn't new nor was it meant as a deflection.  It was meant to show that what you believed invalidated God, really validates God.


Sorry still doesn't make any sense. Does anyone else know what he's talking about? Anyone?



> You are seeing what you want to see.


 No, most atheists would welcome the thought of an afterlife. Maybe not the exact version your religion has to offer although I know some do but you are flat out wrong on that. Just because you want something to be true does not make it true.
[/QUOTE]I suggest you go research the morality progression by Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg.  What you are describing are the 1st 4 stages of the progression.  What the Bible and religion teaches is the last two stages of the progression.[/QUOTE]I will read any book of his after you read and Dawkins or Hitchens. Deal.


> Of course, I can understand your confusion in reading the Bible.  The Bible is effectively a how to Book.  How to live and how not to live.  It can be confusing.  It is also an account of a people who cycled between remembering His ways and forgetting His ways and what happens to them as they bounce back and forth.


Get back to me on this when you cover the part above about working on Sundays.



> Birth is a forgetting and death is a remembering.


No. Birth is the beginning of life and death is the end of life. It's really that simple.


> As you approach death, it will be made clear to you that He was always the matrix.  Science tells us that the energy and matter that make up you was created when the universe was created.
> 
> Of course I will keep telling myself that because I believe it.  It isn't your time yet and it may never be your time.  No one knows but God.


I'm not here to change your beliefs. In fact I'm happy that you are comfortable with your beliefs. Most atheists were once religious themselves, so to say it may not be their time in condescending.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


For anyone to imagine humanity even begins to be capable of perceiving, let alone understanding the totality of what comprises a universe,  shows an incredibly arrogant and amazingly simplistic view of life.   Not to mention being devoid of any self awareness.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I didn't claim Atheism was a religion. That claim was made by Christians in this forum. Please provide some sort of evidence for blind dogmatic faith by atheists. I will be waiting.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I have no problem with someone saying "I believe in God although I cannot prove his existence." What I have a problem with is one claims to have proof of God's existence and cannot provide any.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't believe it is possible for humans to understand the nature of God.  That would be like asking ants to understand the nature of humans.  Suffice it to say, this is why there are slight differences in the form of God in the major religions, but similarities on the teaching of His Ways.  I could talk more on this but will leave it alone for now because what I really want to tell you is that my journey started with a notional belief but was validated by my self awareness and understanding of how my life unfolded.  I couldn't help but notice how everything I thought was good was really bad and how everything I thought was bad was really good.  Then I started finding myself in situations where key pieces of knowledge starting showing up in the most unexpected ways - nothing to do with the Bible - and with each new piece of information the puzzle started to fill itself in.  When I didn't understand how one part fit I would set it aside.  Without looking for it I would get new information and the piece would fit perfectly and reveal a new mystery.  My point here is that it really was self realization which led me to my beliefs and I can only credit the Holy Spirit for that.  I should not know what I know.  I'm not that religious.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I have proven it to myself.  Is that Ok?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Yes.  I was one of those people, but let me clarify that.  Atheism in and of itself is not a religion.  It only manifests itself as a religion when it becomes dogmatic like a religion and its adherents act like it is a religion.  That does not apply to the vast majority of atheists most of whom have no interest in God or religion at all, but it does apply to militant atheists who attack other religions like a rival religion attacks a fellow rival religion.  Protestants and Catholics come to mind as well as Sunnis and Shiites.  I have posted the dogmatic faith of these militant atheists.  It is listed at the bottom of every one of my posts.  It is not something new.  It is not something I made up.  It has been observed and discussed for over 100 years.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I am alive (have soul) and apparently I have a faith too according to you. My faith provides me with comfort too. The truth is the way


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You mean our one little universe? No it is not infinite. It's just one little universe. You are correct here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Yes I am because I admit you can't know either way but I lean towards not believing there is a God.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> shows an incredibly arrogant and amazingly simplistic view of life.




as the vanity of self reflection ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I think religion is bad. I can't help it. When I think religion is harmless I'll stop.

For example George Bush used the stupidity of religion to win. People deny science because of religion. And Muslims CuT off heads over it. Sorry these things bother me


But I still vote for religious idiots. But would you religious idiots vote for an admitted atheist? No you wouldn't. So who's got the problem here?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No because no one threatened him with hell or promised eternal life if he believes those things.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


"southern" Baptist split from Baptists because they refused to free their slaves.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The way I understand it is these mens choices and philosophy has led us towards being a religious, corrupt, rich control everything, ok to own slaves society where the masses are really stupid.

2500 years ago they discovered math and science and they decided the masses couldn't handle truth and could be exploited easier if they were kept dumb.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


How do you reason with people who believe in something that is supernatural and not even a part of our space and time?

And it's amazing how many stupid human subscribe to this logic.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Or that there is proof but you aren't seeing it because you aren't doing it right. You have to want to believe.

100 years ago they would have said it was Satan driving us. They can't go there today because we would just laugh at that argument today.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I am waiting too.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Give us an example of

A. Blind dogmatic faith coming from religion

B. Blind dogmatic faith coming from atheists.

Just because we can't believe in talking snakes and virgin births? Yes I'm dogmatic about these things because they sure seem made up.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Of course not.  It is not possible to follow God's Ways.  His ways are higher than our ways.  We are imperfect broken creatures trying to become adopted sons.  The real problem is people not reading the Bible in its proper context.  They read it like it was written yesterday with yesterday's knowledge and worldview. But if they read it in its proper context of 3000 and 2000 years ago, it would be different.  Additionally, people do not appreciate that the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God.  The nearest I can come to understanding that is that they were given visions which they did not fully understand and were allowed to put in into words and ways that man 3000 and 2000 years ago could understand.  They were given great latitude in recording the laws which were not to the standard of God's laws but were heads and shoulders above their contemporaries of their day.  So to say it is the infallible Word of God is probably not entirely true.  So even though I do not believe that all of the laws written in the OT were what God necessarily intended, the reality is that what intention He did intend for us still challenges us today to meet.  One final thought on the OT.  Historians will tell you that the continued 3000 year existence and success of a people disproportionate to their numbers is inexplicable.  When asked for the secret of their success, they give all credit to God.  They don't see anything special about themselves.  So their "chosenness" is the least arrogant answer they can make.  I attribute their success to their standards which naturally lead to success.  It is very Darwinian in that regard.  Yes, they have cycled between remembering and forgetting God and His ways, but their journey and consequences are meant to serve as an example of how to live and how not to live for all.

I am not talking about afterlife consequences.  I am talking about consequences of the here and now.  Man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't.  There is a law of compensation at work that allows man to tell the difference between doing right and rationalizing that he is doing right when he is really doing wrong.  That law of compensation is called outcomes.  We are allowed to make whatever errors we want, but since error cannot stand, it will eventually fail, and when it does if we are honest and paying attention, we will come to know the error of our way and repent which is really just a fancy word for transforming ourselves and progressing as human beings.  It is very Darwinian.  Consciousness is evolving just like every other phase of the evolution of matter before it and they are all controlled by the Laws of Nature which came into existence when space and time and the matter that makes up you came into existence.  Violations of physical laws are immediate.  Violations of moral laws are not, but just like there are consequences for violating physical laws of nature there are consequences for violating moral laws of nature. 

I don't care what Christian angelology says.  I don't even know what Christian angelology is.  What I do know and what you should know is that two honest people will always have a better relationship than two dishonest people.  Not some of the time... all of the time.  The same goes for thankful versus thankless and loving versus hateful and humble versus arrogant or kind versus cruel or forgiving versus vindictive, etc.  No some of the time all of the time.  So you tell me if you don't believe that virtue is the greatest organizing principle or not.

Do you really believe it matters what other people believe is the measure of success.  I can tell you this with absolute scientific certainty... success does not lead to happiness.   Happiness leads to success.  Like I said before, virtue is a successful behavior.  Doing the right thing, the right way for the right reason will naturally lead to success in all things.  Mind you I did not say utopia.  There's no such thing in a world of broken human beings.  There will always be trials, tribulations, obstacles, challenges and storms.  The question is whether one will have peace through the storm. 

I believe that the spirit of God is within everyone, so I don't dispute people can do good.  I dispute they can do good without God.  I have already explained to you the OT and context.  I don't need to do it again.  You are free to see them anyway you want.  I seriously could not care less. 

I explained what I meant in more detail to CA in post # 414 on the slight differences in the form of God in the major religions, but similarities on the teaching of His Ways.  If you can't figure it out from that I doubt I can help you understand it, but to suffice it to say asking us to understand the nature of God and all see it the same way is akin to asking ants to understand us. 

You are absolutely right that just wanting something to be true does not make it true.  Most people don't believe what they do because they believe in what they do, they believe it because they believe that they can't be wrong.  There are very few exceptions to this.  The only way to see objective truth is to die to self and have no preference for an outcome or consequences to one's self.  This is the 6th stage of the morality progression as defined through science.  Only then can someone see reality for what it is.  We're great at seeing the reality of others but no so good at seeing our own.  This goes back to the whole rationalization thingee I spoke of earlier. 

The Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy was written for men, not God.  We were told to do as the Original Worker did, to create for 6 days and then rest.  We are supposed to get so much satisfaction from creating that we would need to be told to take a break from it.  Unfortunately, most people see creating as a chore, a drudgery, something they do for money, something they do to get to the weekend.  Those people are dead already.  No wonder they hate living. 

Believe what you want but conception is the beginning of life and death is the end of life.  The matter and energy that make up who you are was created 14 billion years ago.  That is a scientific fact. 

Condescending is a term that has a negative connotation.  That's not how that word was first used.  Yes.  I am condescending to you, but not how you believe I am.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So now the big bang is a fact not a theory? You are 100% sure of that? I worship science and even I am open to this being wrong. Maybewe are only 15000 years old


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Laughing leads to crying.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.  Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something.  I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. 

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.


Practically speaking, the universe had a beginning.  Unless of course you don't see anymore usable energy in the closed system.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I know you do.  I've always known you did.  That's what makes you a militant atheist.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


This is all in your head.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How do you know 100% sure it was 14 billion years ago was my point. You said that was a scientific fact. If that's a fact so is evolution.

You're just saying our universe had a beginning. Not the exact date. Got it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Like god


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Your actions say otherwise.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes.  I'm good, but I'm not that good.  If you like we could call it 14 1/2 billion years ago.  Would that make you feel better?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


_Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man._


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Vanity is satan's favorite sin.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> .Practically speaking, the universe had a beginning.  Unless of course you don't see anymore usable energy in the closed system.



You really do need to quit basing your understanding of the universe on outdated models.  This is why your conclusions keep falling short.  With the Quantum Gravity Loop,  there is no beginning,  or end to the universe,  and this is accomplished without loss of available energy.  With no beginning, there is no "Primary Source" - no God necessary. 


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How come skull pilot won't comment on this?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > .Practically speaking, the universe had a beginning.  Unless of course you don't see anymore usable energy in the closed system.
> ...


The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise.  It's that whole usable energy thingee.


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Probably because he isn't in this particular thread.  Of course, you could always ask him.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Because he already proved Ding's prejudiced presumptions about atheists to be a lie with one name - Ayn Rand. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nope.  Quantum mechanics proves this to be inaccurate. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I kind of see it the other way around.  But if it please you to see it this way.  Go for it, brother.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So,  Ayn Rand was a socialist? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I was just having a conversation on this very subject today.  No, quantum mechanics does not disprove the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Would you like to have that discussion with me?


----------



## ding (Jan 2, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  She was a conservative.  You are a socialist.  She also wasn't a big fan of Libertarians either.  She thought they were discards from the left, anarchists who were amoral.  Kind of like you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You think ayn Rand proves atheism isn't for capitalists too?

You sound like someone who has been brainwashed into thinking atheism is evil. 

Ayn Rand and skull will tell you that's ridiculous but you choose to see it the other way around? You choose is the key part of the sentence.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 2, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I didn't say that it disproves it. It allows for creation of energy without loss of mass. It functions outside of Einsteinian physics.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Your comment wasn't directed at liberals, it was directed at atheists.  However,  since Ayn Rand was,  herself, an atheist, your observation is inaccurate, at best,  a lie,  at worst. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.

The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.

The good thing about not believing a scientific theory is you won't burn in hell for eternity if you are wrong.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  I don't believe I did say that.  I believe you are confused by what I said.  Ayn Rand did believe that socialism worships big government and social policy.  I said I believe that militant atheists worship big government and social policy and that it is based on atheism and the deification of man.  Any Rand believed in objectionsim or some such bullshit, that man's self interest was noble and good or something along those lines.  You guys are so desperate to win an argument you will distort anything I write to serve your purpose.  I write fucking paragraphs and the best you can do is snip out little pieces to misquote and use as silly fringe arguments while you concede the rest and pretend that you addressed it to comfort your wounded and fragile egos.  I have no preference for an outcome.  You guys do.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Quantum mechanics indicates you're on the right track. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That's what I said and as a person who claims to absolutely know right from wrong he won't admit lying or that he was wrong.

So clearly he knows right and wrong but chooses to do wrong. So much for that book of absolute rules making him a better person.

It's real easy for a guy to be anti abortion and feel richious about it. How about not lie?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Except you didn't say anything about militant atheism.  You said it is ,  "*based on atheism*". There was no qualifier.  You were levelling that "socialism is their religion" bullshit against atheists in general.  Now that your accusation has been exposed as bullshit,  you want to try to pretend you were saying something you weren't. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sometimes less is more.

If you can't get a sentence why should we write a paragraph?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Let's be honest too that atheism is probably much more compatable with unregulated free market capitalism. Greed is good, every man for himself survival of the fittest


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Good Lord, you have found an exception to the rule.  Alleluia!.  Ayn Rand is excused.  Your sorry militant atheist ass is not.  How's that?   Putting that aside, you are invoking Ayn Rand out of context, asshat.  Go back and re-read post #319 to put this in it's proper context.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says he's not.  Do you have any evidence that tells us what happened in the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second?


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a saint.  You and Czernobog should see me anyway that gives you pleasure.  I couldn't be happier for you two.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How's that working out for you?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Fuck you,  you lying piece of shit.  You have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know dick about physics, atheism, or common sense.  Don't you dare presume that you know anything about me,  or my political ideology, and get a case of the ass with me,  just be cause you have been exposed for the ignorant dishonest fucktard that you are. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes, sometimes less is more, and sometimes you get asked a lot of questions which requires more.  And sometimes the ego requires a response, but the ego always knows when a response is not really a response and it will demand payment.  Sometimes that payment is taken out on someone who has nothing to do with the beating the ego took, but the ego does not care.  The ego only knows that a payment is due.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I know you better than you know yourself.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


See what I meant about the ego?  It was better that he took it out on me than someone else.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of quantum physics.  You should really stop embarrassing yourself. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Then your holy book of absolutes does you no good. I don't claim to be a saint either


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You know dick about me. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I guess I can't accuse you of lying just because you are illogical. After all you may believe the stuff you say even though the evidence says you are wrong.

What evidence? Skull and rand


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Condo paid off, car paid off, zero debt, savings, property, good job. I like capitalism.

I certainly don't want communism so I know you are wrong.

Saying athiesm leads to communism is like me telling you belief in God leads to homosexuality. You being the exception of course.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


http://phys.org/news/2016-10-quantum-violate-law-thermodynamics.html

The likelihood of seeing quantum systems violating the second law of thermodynamics has been calculated by UCL scientists.

In two papers, published in this week's issue of _Physical Review X_ and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the team determined a more precise version of a basic law of physics - which says that disorder tends to increase with time unless acted on by an outside force - and applied it to the smallest quantum systems.

"The vast majority of the time, the second law of thermodynamics is obeyed. It says that a cup of hot coffee in a cold room will cool down rather than heat up, and a collection of coins all initially heads up will likely produce a mixture of heads and tails when given a shake. In fact, it is thanks to the second law of thermodynamics that we instantly recognise when we are watching a movie backwards," explained PhD student Alvaro M. Alhambra (UCL Physics & Astronomy).

The team say that situations which break the second law of thermodynamics are not ruled out in principle, but are rare.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


For your sake, I hope you are right because otherwise, you have just denied yourself.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Go right ahead.  No skin off my teeth.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Only time will tell.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


My signature line defines you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?


Yes I'm dumber than the sheep who believe because they want to believe, have been threatened with hell and have been brainwashed since birth.

If you were raised on an island by people who didn't believe in God what age do you think you would come up with the God concept? I don't think God is something that is naturally concluded. You may contemplate a creator but at what point would you decide a heaven was logical and not wishful thinking?

In fact the person raised by non religious people might not even give this any thought. They might instead focus all their energy on living and learning things that are knowable.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Precisely.  *Rare*. Which means that the quantum gravity loop is well within the parameters set by physics,  and a quantum loop does not lose energy,  does not have end points,  and does not need your mythical Primary Source,  or Cause.

Checkmate. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well,  since I am neither Communist,  nor socialist,  it rather doesn't.  Like I said you are full of shit,  and know nothing about me. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If it's OK for a theist like you to lie its certainly OK for me.

You're no saint and neither am I. I just don't rationalize and I don't have a get out of hell free card which gives me a free pass on lying. You do.

Are you ever going to admit you are fos on your atheists are commy claim? It really would make you seem more intellectually honest


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


Your view of religion is oversimplified and distorted.  You believe it is "morals" that are learned but it isn't.  It is bad behaviors that are learned.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Really?  Then tell me what your political views are.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What is your "signature line"?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Your view of religion is oversimplified and distorted.



So is your view of atheists. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You do rationalize.  You are doing it right now.  

Sorry, but reason and experience tells us that militant atheism leads to communism.  Heck, Karl Marx  and Vladimir Lenin even say so.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It is below every one of my posts.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Your view of religion is oversimplified and distorted.
> ...


Not really. There is a distribution.  It's just that when I have discussions with the radial extreme, it gets condensed.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


See what he's doing there?  Since he got called out,  he wants to modify his statement with "militant", and pretend that is what he has been saying all along,  even though his comments are a matter of record.  This is what you get from Ding.  You offer to five him the chance for intellectual honesty,  but the fact is he isn't honest.  He hates all atheists,  and pretends he doesn't.  He insists that he has no preferred outcome,  all while attacking atheists,  and their character.

He is a liar,  and a religious zealot.  Plain,  and simple. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Who cares? What are skulls and Ayn Rand's political views? So there's no connection.

And aren't Germany Canada and Australia socialist countries? They have socialized medicine and schools, right? So how long do you predict until they eventually fall into communism?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well,  you think that,  anyway. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Not for me


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I have to agree. Like a Christian who says the Lord loves you but thinks you're going to hell.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


Will you please tell ding you being an atheist does not make you a commie or socialist?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


You only need to read this thread for that.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


You'd better stick to things that are knowable.  The unknowable frightens atheists.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Wrong! Im not afraid of death or hell you are. I laugh at such nonsense and go about living my life.

Now you can come up with reasons why you think I don't believe or why I deny God exists but you'll probably miss the mark. It's not Satan, im not angry and Its not because I want to be able to live in sin without consequences.  I think belief holds us back, makes us dumb and is how they control us. I think it's made up.

So maybe, just maybe, I don't believe because it isn't true


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You're not afraid of death?  That would make you a singularly unique human being.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Again, you refer to "theoretical" quantum physics.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


What's to be afraid of? Do you remember what things were like 4u before you were born? That's what things will be like 4u after you die.

Oh you mean dying? Yes, I'm afraid of dying. I hope i don't suffer and it will be sad for my life to be over but I'm not scared of what happens after the lights go out.

And for you and your religion to say you know what happens is laughable to me.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.
> ...


Making you like me, an agnostic.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Why are you so jealous of agnostics all the time? You secretly are one?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




No, gravity is not incorporeal. Gravity is a force directly related and connected to matter in the material universe.

Let me put it this way. If a person wants to understand calculous, they must apply their mind to learn it. If a person does not do what is necessary to learn, they will never understand calculous.

Only those who do, will. Its as simple as that.


In the same way I told you the way to prepare your mind in order to be capable of seeing God.. If you do not take the steps necessary God will remain hidden from you,not because he is not there, but because you have chosen to remain blind.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Which way do you lean? If you lean towards disbelief then you're an agnostic atheist. Not just an undecided agnostic.

Are all agnostics equally unsure?

The reason we aren't agnostics is because then theists think they can convince us. What do you call an unconvincable agnostic?

So are you saying there are only two types of people? Theists and agnostics? Because no one can say for sure there is no God. In that case there are no theists either because they aren't sure either. They think they are sure but so do we.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He's a believer in generic God but follows the bible because it's the best book we got


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Again Professor Knee Jerk, to what religion do you refer?  I haven't mentioned anything about God anywhere in this entire thread.    
Afraid of dying but not afraid of death?  Why are you afraid of dying?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


But for so many gullible sheep they don't have to do anything they simply believe.

So no, there are no steps to finding God. You think you found God because you wanted to.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I am smack right in the middle, I see no proof either way, as well as not taking any side, and the first side to show me actual proof will get my vote.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Because it might hurt and because my time is over


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He's definitely confused, in another thread he said that he's for gays but against gay marriage. lol.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Bullshit! You aren't even close to believing in God. 

You don't see how and why we made it up? Watch The Cosmos. They explain it


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


So you don't belong to a religion?

What are you afraid of after you die? If a religion didn't scare you what did?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




Mindless sheep who do nothing but believe have never seen or heard a single word from God in their entire life. They expect to be rewarded after they die.

Thats not what I said. Purify and refine your mind and you will see God before you die.

WTF.. What could possibly be yours or anyones objection to purifying and cleansing their own mind?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Let's suppose your death is painless.  What do you have to worry about?  Your time is over?  How would you know that?  How could you when your death results in a black void of nothingness?  It's certain that no form of consciousness will exist for you then.....right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Good reply


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Right


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I said I'm in the middle, I don't believe a god has been proven and I don't believe that a god has been disproven either.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


How do you know a chicken doesn't go to heaven when you kill it? You don't. So just in case be a vegetarian


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And how would you like to go about substantiating the existence of nothing? Or the non existence of nothing as the case may be.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Neither has my pink dragon. Are you agnostic about her?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.
> ...


That's correct, that's why atheists are insane. Their belief is that god doesn't exist yet they cannot say with any credibility he can't. That's a statement of faith yet they claim they only believe in science. That is not the thinking of a rational individual.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


How do you substantiate the opposite? 

How do you know? First let's establish that because I admit I know nothing other than what makes sense to me. You aren't making sense. Fact is I'm not afraid of after death. You are and you seem to be trying to scare me. Stop it. Lol


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


What happens to your pet turtle when it's time here is up? How do you substantiate your answer?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's just proof that you're drunk.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm not.  I don't see any agnostics here.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The depth of your responses typifies the intellectual dead end of pop culture atheists.   Hence the thread title.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


What do you want from us? Do you want us to insist we know or be honest your claim is unfalsafiable and unknowable?

Most atheist are referring to Jesus, moses, Mohammad and Joseph smith when we say we know God doesn't exist. We are atheist about these god stories. You can relate to us on at least 2 of these stories, right?

I'm agnostic atheist on generic God because it Seems like we made it up but talking snakes and virgin births???

Let's say we are atheist enough to risk our eternal souls. That's pretty sure. You don't get more sure than that.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


People shouldn't drink and post.  That's how accidents happen.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He's atheist sure enough that he's denying Jesus is the Messiah.

That he isn't agnostic about because agnostics still burn in hell.

Or does mudda think God will treat agnostics differently than atheists? Maybe that's why he insists hes not a disbeliever


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Have you ever met a militant agnostic?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Thank you. 

I know that you already know that people who say they found God just because they have adopted an unsubstantiated belief have only latched on to hope.

Thats not good enough for you, so you are already half way there...

If you want to go all the way and stand in the presence of the living God just act on what I said.

Then it will be impossible for you to not believe.


.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Well for starters your little blog at the bottom is completely wrong. Also this thread and thousands of others are an attack on Atheism. Do you feel it is wrong for atheists to defend their position.Funny how you bring up the term "militant" atheists and compare them to the the attacks between Protestants and Catholics & Sunnis and Shiites. These groups actually killed each other while the "militant" atheists are merely having internet discussions and public lectures. No wonder you believe in God. You have no base in reality.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.
> 
> The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.




_*was contracting after it first expanded ...*_


matter en-mass expanding at a _finite angle_ in vacuum is a loop that re-converges back to its origin - BB is a loop, there never is contraction.

.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I see this all the time from theists. It complete BS. Most atheists were at one time religious. Some of them believed in God for many years. So now tell me, especially after you know now this, who has chosen to remain blind?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> You're not afraid of death? That would make you a singularly unique human being.




not if an individual reaches the Apex of Knowledge before their physiology expires and is able to release their Spirit before that final event. what your religion ignores as the appropriate goal.

.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


.


Mudda said:


> I am smack right in the middle, I see no proof either way, as well as not taking any side, and the first side to show me actual proof will get my vote.




are you a releasable Spirit from your physiology .... if so are there others, might there not be an Almighty or a committee of the same and the origin of the genome of life that is managed within that dimension including physicality.

.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Not entirely.  I'm not afraid of death, either.  I'm afraid of *dying*, but that's rather because there are so many painful ways to do, and I have a rather healthy aversion to pain.  But being dead?  Nah.  I look at it this way, either we're right, or you are.  Either way, I've made my choice, and made my peace with that choice.  Worrying about the consequences of a choice already made is rather a waste of time, don't you think?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, when discussing things like cosmic beginnings, it's rather all theoretical isn't it?  Quantum mechanics, Gracvity Loop, the Big Bang; it's all theoretical.  And God?  That's not even a theory; it's just a hypothosis, and a rather poorly crafted one at that.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Again, that is just a diplomatic term used to not offend theists.  Either you believe that there is a God or you don't.  One is theist, or atheist.  If one is atheist, one is a strong atheist - confident in their position - or they are not.  You are not confidentin your position, so you don't eant to offend anyone.  Thus you call yourslef an agnostic.  But the fact remains that you believe in the existence of deity no more than I do.  I am just more confident in my position than you.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


No matter how many different ways you try to say it, your position is always the same:  God will become real for you, if you let yourself believe in God with out any actual evidence.

And, hey.  I'm glad that makes you feel better.  Go, live in peace.  I am not willing, or able to do that.  I need evidence to inform my percepton, rather than letting my perception order evidence to fit it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


While you may not "mention God", because you have spent the entire thread attacking atheists, it is a fair presumption that you are a theist.  The flavour of theist is rather irrelevant, now isn't it?  Or are you suggesting that you ar an atheist who hates atheists?  That would seem to be a rather self-defeating position, don't you think?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I rather think I have a rather pure mind.  I have a rather strong understanding of right from wrong.  I do not waste time with self-destructive thoughts.  I don't waste time with anger, or violence.  I discipline myself to see what is rational, and what is reasonable.  And what my "purified mind" has revealed to me is that without objective evidence, divinity is a matter of imagination, and superstition.

Now, of course, you are going to insist that I have not properly purified my mind, and I will ask you, by what knowledge do you make that claim, as you do not know me?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Again, you make presumptions without evidence.  And of course you need to personalize when you just can't seem to make your alleged argument.  Your post only serves as further evidence of the intellectual dead end of atheism.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


My religion?  What religion is that?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Damn these people are slow..


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Without evidence?  Again, your choice to attack atheists *is* the evidence.  I made nothing personal.  I referred to your attack on atheists.  I said nothing about myself.  Your actions indicate that you are a theist.  And your response to my post confirms you are a theist; I notice you didn't deny being a theist.  You just attacked, again.  What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much being exposed as a theist.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No part of any of your remarks logically follow any of my "actions" .  And yes, you constantly have to personalize with unfounded speculation.  It's no wonder you're an atheist.....your brain is broken.  You can't think.  You only react based upon the most primitive of instincts.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

When people need to personalize and assign motivation it rapidly becomes obvious that their arguments don't stand on their own.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Everyone is going to the same place regardless of what you believe. It's not like believing in an imaginary superhero and following some book will change anything at all. You guys crack me up!


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Nothing in the real world points to your conclusion. Could be, just show me some real proof.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> My religion? What religion is that?






Constructive Anarchy said:


> Where in the OP was there a praise of Christianity or anything else? Do all you pop culture atheists have this problem with constant uncontrollable knee jerk?




my liberty is no different than yours and I have the OP (video) as reference for yours. the praising of christianity is not in reference to a religion but a 4th century political agenda circumventing the true religion they and apparently the OP (if you prefer) ignore.

to this point, what is your point simply to be ambiguous ... good luck.

.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I see no proof of a god, of that I am 100% sure. But I also see no proof that a god isn't possible, also 100% sure of that.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


So, you are denying that you have spent this entire thread attacking atheists?  You do not suppose that calling atheists intellectually dead is an attack on atheists?  Really?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Let's see if we can guess what kind of atheist you are.   Are you the cool, trendy, urbane, pop culture intellectual kind of atheist like Sam Harris?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Maybe you're an angry, dogmatic atheist like Richard Dawkins.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Or possibly a more erudite, cultured sort of atheist like Christopher Hitchens.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I have no idea what this word jumble means.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Nope.  Just answer the question.  Do you not suppose that calling atheists intellectually dead is an attack on atheists?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It's a refutation of atheistic thought.  Any personal inferences are yours and yours alone.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


So suggesting that theists are nmorally corrupt would just be a "refutation of theistic ethics"?  Really?  Do you think theists would agree with that characterisation?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I was thinking that earlier today.  Most of my non militant theistic friends wouldn't even waste their time on here arguing with militant atheists.  Guys like ding need to ask themselves why they feel the need to come here and argue with atheists and agnostics.  Seems to me ding probably has his doubts.  

*Militant atheists are just as bad as religious ones.*
No, they’re not. There are no calls for slavery, rape or murder in the atheist holy book.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University theatre or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.

Note: ‘Militant’ atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.

See also: The Ethics of Belief (a must read), Richard Dawkins on Militant Atheism, Christian Terrorism, Islamic Terrorism, Atheist Terrorism (no link found).

_“I’m sorry if my insensitivity towards your beliefs offends you. But guess what – your religious wars, jihads, crusades, inquisitions, censoring of free speech, brainwashing of children, forcing girls into underage marriages, female genital mutilation, stoning, pederasty, homophobia and rejection of science and reason offend me. So I guess we’re even.” – _Anonymous


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


If you say so ok.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Militant’ atheism is most often confused with gosateizm (state atheism), which was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. It was this ideology which was responsible for the oppression and murder of theists under several 20th century communist regimes. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage.

You keep making this mistake.  Will you stop?  If you don't then it's not a mistake.  Then you are lying.  So from here on our stop telling Skull pilot, me and Ayn Rand that we are socialists or commies.  It makes you look stupid and we are sick of explaining this error you keep making.  Stop it!


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





Mudda said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



*There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.*
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_ and _definitions of_ a god.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



*Maybe this will help:*

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable. It is a philosophical position not necessarily tied to god’s existence or non-existence. One can be agnostic about any claim. The word originates from the Ancient Greek meaning “without knowledge”.






Most atheists fall into the category of ‘Agnostic Atheism’ – they don’t claim to know with certainty that god does not exist. Conversely, most theists are ‘Gnostic Theists’ – they claim to know with certainty that their particular god exists.

When most atheists say “God does not exist” they are generally speaking in the same manner as when people say “Leprechauns/Santa Claus/Fairies/Unicorns don’t exist” – those things do not appear exist within contextual reality in which we find ourselves but, importantly, the statement is not necessarily an absolute one.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:


Infinite Regression
Argument from Poor Design
The Atheist’s Wager
Non-belief Paradox
Omnipotence Paradox
Free Will Paradox
Argument from locality
Argument from Non-reason
Argument from incompatible properties
Fate of the Unlearned
Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell
These are all real world arguments against god.  Are you smart enough to think this through or do you just want to stay a retard on the fence?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You're really not getting this.  Are you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


And I believe I answered your question.  I'm afraid of dying because it might hurt and because my wonderful life will be coming to an end.  Maybe afraid isn't the word.  More sad.  And as much as I wish/hope there is an afterlife I don't believe there is one.  Do you really have a hard time understanding this?  

I'm not afraid of after I die because: 

a.  If there is something more after this it is anyone's guess.  No god visited and told anyone about the afterlife.  If you believe that then you believe one of the organized religions.  And so I don't fear not believing organized religions will send me to hell because I don't believe organized religions.

b. It will probably be just like it was for me 5 years before I was born.  I don't recall those times.  They existed but I didn't.  Do you have a hard time grasping a universe where you don't participate?  Trust me the earth and humans did just fine for millions of years before you were born.  The stars and planets will continue after your spirit has been extinguished just like when the chicken you ate died.  That's it.  No heaven for the chicken.  And he doesn't come back re incarnated too although people believe that too for whatever reasons.  Whatever they are, they believe they are good reasons.

Do you really believe there is a heaven for you?  Then tell me why and remember, you don't get to mention any religion or god in your argument.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I agree.  If there is an afterlife, people who believed in allah or mohammad or budda or jesus or moses will all be there with us atheists.  No one religion has the secrets of the afterlife.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



I'll flip what I said earlier about people calling atheists militant.

If an THEIST is someone who believes in gods then a ‘militant’ THEIST is apparently someone who passionately believes in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress atheism - come from outside THEISM.  Or calling names.

So as long as all you are doing is calling us names, I'm cool with that.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Afraid of dying but not afraid of death.  One question:  Could you possibly be more confused than you are right now?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.



*Maher* is highly critical of all *religion* and views it as highly destructive. He has been described, or self-identified, variously as an agnostic, atheist, and apatheist, while objecting to having his views defined by a single label. In his 2008 feature film Religulous, he refers to himself as agnostic.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



You remind me of Bill Maher

*Maher* is highly critical of all *religion* and views it as highly destructive. He has been described, or self-identified, variously as an agnostic, atheist, and apatheist, while objecting to having his views defined by a single label. In his 2008 feature film Religulous, he refers to himself as agnostic.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



No I'm crystal clear.  You're having a problem because you don't want to open your mind.  If you did then you would realize gods made up.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I get it just fine.  You hate atheists, but want to pretend like it is those poor primitive satheists who have the problem.  You are an arrogant, sanctimonious theist, no different than any other.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yeah, you're a real deep thinker.  Have you made any progress in substantiating the non existence of nothing?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Hate now.    You just can't seem to stop yourself from making childish mischaracterizations.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.


But you aren't atacking atheists...  You are a coward, and a liar.  Why don't you just admit that you hate atheists, and be done with it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You just don't get it.  do you?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

I think someone may be taking this personally.   Which makes absolutely no sense of any kind since I don't actually know any of these anonymous participants..


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.
> ...


You don't actually win many arguments.  Do you.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.
> ...


People like you are just cheap entertainment.  If I'm guilty of anything it's picking easy targets.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


If is not a question of the possible.  It is a question of the probable.  Literally *anything* is possible. Some things,  however are highly improbable.

It is *possible* that,  one day,  someone may provide irrefutable objective evidence in support of the existence of divinity.  However,  in light of millennia of failure to do so,  I find the prospect highly unlikely.  So,  I am not afraid to insult theists by maintaining my continues position that,  until such evidence is presented,  I will stand by my conviction that God does not exist.

However,  lime any rational person,  I am more than willing to abandon that position once evidence to the contrary is presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



No.  All I know is your question proves nothing so unless you have a point you think you are making, stfu, ok?  

Here is the truth about your stupid question:  Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

Why there is no god

So make your point because your question doesn't prove anything and I'll be damned if I'm going to answer 20 stupid questions that ultimately lead us to the same place.  There is no god and you can't prove it.

Point number 8 might be answering your question.  It says something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure.  These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


"Picking easy targets"  A target is an object of abuse, scorn, derision, etc.  Except you insisted you were not attacking anyone.  So, apparently you are a liar, as well?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



But you aren't anything special bro.  We've had much better conversations with ding.  If anything you are the retard here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You make mudda seem smart.

Am I Dumb Test - Intelligence Test - How Smart Are You?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



Take this test

The Gay Test - How Gay Are You?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.


I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe.  Not because there's any good evidence.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.
> ...


Oh really, you're not sure what that means?  But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else.  Strange.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?



So because we don't feel the feeling you and the masses feel, we are spiritually dumb?  

*Smart person X believes in god or ‘You are not qualified’.*
Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.

Invisible pink unicorns exist. You’re not an expert in them, so you can’t say they don’t.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



You're not smart

_“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan

_“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” _– Mark Twain


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



I understand intelligent people.  You I don't understand.  

*I want to believe*
There is a truth and reality independent of YOUR desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.  In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

# 29 Why there is no god


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


It's good that you recognize your own irrational beliefs.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Now you understand intelligent people too.  What a remarkable facility you have for understanding something so obviously foreign to you.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



You haven't understood a word I've said yet so I'm showing you what Carl Sagan and Mark Twain have to say.  Now you want me to go back to my own thoughts which you don't understand?  Forget it.    

If you don't like my thoughts or Sagan's or Twain's then I think your goal is to just frustrate us into leaving this forum.  

Talking to you is the intellectual dead end.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



The truth is, life is a dead end.  Eventually everyone dies.  Your end ends with you dying ='s dead end.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication.   Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It might be amazing if you knew what that looked like.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.


[/QUOTE]
It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.[/QUOTE]

He said, "Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism."

Maybe I'm stupid but what the fuck does that mean?  Maybe the religious retard can explain this one for us idiots.

Is he one of those Dennis Miller types who are too smart for the room?  Because I keep reading that comment over and over again and its not making any sense.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



Just like you don't like reading Sagan quotes, I'm not watching your videos.  They get me too emotionalism.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.
was meant as an alternative to contraction is all and as an explanation for both before and after Singularity.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



It looks like this





He looks like he is very emotionalism.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


We'll,  it certainly doesn't look like any of the drivel that you have been drooling all over this thread.  Tell you what.  I agree with Seelybobo.  You are not worth conversing with,  as you have nothing of value to say.  Off to ignore land with you. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Not what I'd say, but I see no proof that suggests that a god is not possible. If you have any, please share.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.


It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.[/QUOTE]

He said, "Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism."

Maybe I'm stupid but what the fuck does that mean?  Maybe the religious retard can explain this one for us idiots.

Is he one of those Dennis Miller types who are too smart for the room?  Because I keep reading that comment over and over again and its not making any sense.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



Just like you don't like reading Sagan quotes, I'm not watching your videos.  They get me too emotionalism.[/QUOTE]


I guess it's just unfortunate that your alleged rational thinking is so fundamentally influenced by your emotions.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I can't begin to tell you what a crushing blow that is.  I'm very sad now.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I know, different people have different definitions of the word agnostic. My view is that there's no proof either way for or against a god and if anyone ever finds any either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.
So that's what I call agnostic, maybe for lack of a more specific term?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


So you admit that a god is possible, just unproven so far. You're an agnostic. Good for you.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


If that makes you more comfortable, then more power to you.  I, myself, am not ashamed of my atheism, so I have no problem identifying as an atheist.  Why would you be so disturbed by your atheism?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Ha ha. You see constructive you are fairly new to usmb so I will cut you some slack. You don't just jump in to a conversation and spout nonsense and expect to get any points for that here. That might be OK in politics but not here. This is a no bs zone. If you have a point make it. Don't talk to us like we are stupid because it's you who believes in agod who watches and cares when you masturbate. 

And I don't think there's a point you can make that hasn't already been made.

We want you traditional Christians to be more like the Jews and Mormons. They aren't trying to get us to be a Mormon or Jewish nation. I think that's when you guys pushed us atheists too far.

So if you have a point to make make it. Don't be condescending. You aren't trying to convince us youre trying to convince yourselves.

Hopefully one day you'll realize Christianity ain't for everybody.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


An atheist thinks that there is no god. Some go further and say that god is not possible. Plus, atheists are usually kinda obnoxious.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

I wonder when one of these atheist scholars is going to make an actual argument in support of the atheist viewpoint?  They seem to have missed that part.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 3, 2017)

weird, believing in a god is the intellectual dead end based on all the evidence...There's no evidence for it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I wonder when one of these atheist scholars is going to make an actual argument in support of the atheist viewpoint?  They seem to have missed that part.


I guess I need to mute you on Tapatalk, too.  You apparently haven't been paying attention.  The "argument in support of the atheist viewpoint" is rather simple, and straightforward:

Rational intellect demands that one never accept as true anything for which there is no objective evidence. The key to that position is *objective.*  There is no objective evidence supporting the existence of God, therefore it is irrational to simply accept the existence of such.  That's it.  That is the argument in favour of atheism.  Rather simple, and straight forward.

Now, the theist is going to bring up a bunch of irrelevant theories that are scientifically accepted - Evolution, and "The Big Bang" most noteably.  However, in the case of these theories, there is evidence to support them.  Should evidence come to light that indicate that they are inaccurate, or incomplete, then those theories will be replaced by theories that more accurately fit the evidence that is presented.

This is the point of the quantum gravity loop theory of which I have alluded several times during this discussion.  Evidence has been discovered for which the Big Bang could not account, so it has been replaced with a theory that *does* fit the evidence presented.

This is rather the difference between atheists, and Theists.  Atheists, being drivien by reason, have no problem discarding outdated, and untenable theories for new ones as evidence is discovered.  Theists need all roads to point to divinity, so, rather than discarding their emotional grip on divinity, they must constantly find ways to atempt to force any new evidence discovered to fit with their "God fantasy" that they are incapable of relinquishing.

This, simply, is the support of atheism: that it is rational, and logically, because it is never based on emotion, or superstition, but on facts, and evidence presented.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


If you say so.  I would say that theists are the obnoxious ones - particularly the Theists of the "Big Three" flavour (welll...two of the 'Big Three", anyway - Jews don't really seem to care if anyone converts to their religion.  They seem perfectly happy living, and letting live); constantly trying to push themselves on everyone, and using every means possible, including the government, to force their views on everyone else.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Argument from ignorance. I just explained why belief is not just as probable as disbelief. Any outrageous claims should come with evidence and I or you shouldn't need no proof to know God is simply a hypothesis you neither accept or reject. You don't have the balls to take a side


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Then you must admit there is no such thing as a theist either. Do you try to make the same point to people who claim to be theists? Because they aren't any more sure there is a God than I am there is not.

The opposite of a theist is an atheist. If you aren't a theist and you had to pick one? And I'm not talking about which one you would pick if you thought hell was at stake. I'm talking about hooking you to a lie detector and holding a gun to your head and saying agnostic automatically gets you shot. So you have to be honest, do you think there's a god? You'd say no.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I wonder when one of these atheist scholars is going to make an actual argument in support of the atheist viewpoint?  They seem to have missed that part.


You're new you may need to search the archives newby.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I wonder when one of these atheist scholars is going to make an actual argument in support of the atheist viewpoint?  They seem to have missed that part.


You're new you may need to search the archives newby


Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I was open to God for 30 plus years. I became an atheist. One of the reasons I knew I did the right thing were all the people who told me I was evil or maybe angry or I want to live a sinful life or I'm not smart enough.

Did you listen to what he said about theists who misrepresent/lie about his views and intentions? Or derail the conversation?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Still not sure exactly what you guys believe because you contradict yourselves and then instead of finish the thought you change the subject or call us animals for not believing what you do. This was a good listen. Let's try to stay on topic


----------



## Caractacus (Jan 3, 2017)

I think the best comment or passage I've ever seen on the whole atheism vs. theism 'controversy' is from old Tom Paine's  _The_ _Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology_:

'Let him believe this, and he will live more consistently and morally than by any other system; it is by his being taught to contemplate himself as an outlaw, as an outcast, as a beggar, as a mumper, as one thrown, as it were, on a dunghill at an immense distance from his Creator, and who must make his approaches by creeping and cringing to intermediate beings, that he conceives either a contemptuous disregard for everything under the name of religion, or becomes indifferent, or turns what he calls devout. In the latter case, he consumes his life in grief, or the affectation of it; his prayers are reproaches; his humility is ingratitude; he calls himself a worm, and the fertile earth a dunghill; and all the blessings of life by the thankless name of vanities; _he despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON; and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason, as if man could give reason to himself_.'

I leave it at that- someone believing or not in God at the end of the day won't cause me to lose sleep- I and take a dim view of 'debating' about religion because, as I see it, it all boils down to bunch of casuistry and clever sophisms.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And yet you declined to state your political views.  Beliefs not worth expressing are beliefs not worth having.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  There is no need to make that distinction with you as you are a militant atheist.  There is only a distinction which needs to made when I am not dealing with a militant atheist.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Don't be silly.  Of course there is a connection.  Ayn Rand was not a militant atheist.  You are.  Ayn Rand was a conservative.  You are not.   Look at how you attempt to defend socialism without admitting that you are defending socialism  Socialists can't be honest because no onje would buy their bullshit if they were.  

They will fall into communism when they descend into anarchy which will happen unless they return to conservative values.  Lucky for them the pieces of shit socialists have so far been unable to replace loyalty to God, Country and Family with loyalty to state.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't disagree, except this isn't a discussion of ideological position, but of theological position.  My ideological positions are irrelevant to this discussion.  That is the problem.  You hate atheists, because you *think* that all atheists also have ideological positions that you find anathema.  Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but atheists are no different than theists in that we come in all different shapes, and sizes, *and ideological positions*.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You think any atheist who voices their opinion is a "militant atheist", so, yeah, you're calling me militant is kinda meaningless.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Of course you are afraid of death.  Normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises.  

Dumb is spending your workday blogging from work.  Predictable surprises await.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ayn Rand *wasn't militant*, but we are?  You have clearly never read any of Rand's writings, or you would know just how little respect she had for religionists.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Caractacus said:


> I think the best comment or passage I've ever seen on the whole atheism vs. theism 'controversy' is from old Tom Paine's  _The_ _Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology_:
> 
> 'Let him believe this, and he will live more consistently and morally than by any other system; it is by his being taught to contemplate himself as an outlaw, as an outcast, as a beggar, as a mumper, as one thrown, as it were, on a dunghill at an immense distance from his Creator, and who must make his approaches by creeping and cringing to intermediate beings, that he conceives either a contemptuous disregard for everything under the name of religion, or becomes indifferent, or turns what he calls devout. In the latter case, he consumes his life in grief, or the affectation of it; his prayers are reproaches; his humility is ingratitude; he calls himself a worm, and the fertile earth a dunghill; and all the blessings of life by the thankless name of vanities; _he despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF REASON; and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason, as if man could give reason to himself_.'
> 
> I leave it at that- someone believing or not in God at the end of the day won't cause me to lose sleep- I and take a dim view of 'debating' about religion because, as I see it, it all boils down to bunch of casuistry and clever sophisms.


See if you can figure out this message.

Shawn Achor: The happy secret to better work | TED Talk | TED.com


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Of course I'm *not* afraid of death.  Because there is nothing to be afraid of.  Are *you* afraid of death?


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I have read enough to know that I know that Ayn Rand believed in absolute morals.  I have read enough to know how little she thought of amoral moral relativists like yourself.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


How can I?  I have eternal life.  I have a soul and I have my faith.  What do you have?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.  Wanna try again?


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  Just the ones like you who have admitted that you seek to subordinate the expression of their faith.


----------



## Caractacus (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> [See if you can figure out this message.
> 
> Shawn Achor: The happy secret to better work | TED Talk | TED.com



I think he needs a valium because he seems to be a bit _too_ animated.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The same thing you do - nothing.  You *believe* you have a soul, and eternal life, but has has been demonstrated throughout this thread, all you have to support that is your wishful thinking.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Im putting ding on ideological ignore. He's back to suggesting that atheism leads to communism. The other guy you put on ignore posted a really good video and the atheist pointed out how he would be having a good conversation with a theist and then when they get frustrated they lash out with wild claims meant to derail the subject.

Could there be a better example than us discussing if God exists and ding saying we are commies? There is no better example.

Ding, it's been nice, I'm going to move on. I think this conversation has run its course.

Czernobog you have made a lot of great points that went in one ear and out the other. I wouldn't waste any more time on this thread these guys are newby amateur lightweight unevolved sheep


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I have admitted no such thing.  You have tried to *get me* to admit that, but I have pointed out, every time you have, that I have no need to subordeinate anything.  You, and your kind will extinguish yourselves all on your own, without any action from me necessary.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I disagree. What I wrote was exactly on point.  I don't judge atheists by their atheism.  I judge them by their actions and behaviors.  You seek to suppress people expressing their faith.  You pretend that you don't go out of your way, but you actively seek them out to do so.  You literally go trolling religious threads to find them.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Wow! Another derailing and an attack I took a 15 minute break at work. You're turning into a dick


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Now you're just flat out lying.  I have never supported the suppression of anyone.  I'm with Seelybob.  You are a moron, a sheep, a liar, and a zealot.  Buh bye.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Good.  Bye bye.  

I don't hate atheists.  I hate what militant atheists, like yourself, do.  You seek out religious persons for the express purpose of confronting them and then you pretend that you aren't doing it.  Of course I will shine a light on your ideological behavior because I know what the ideological behavior is of people who do what you do.  You are a subversive.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And you are a horrible representative of a theist it turns out.

Czerg is in a thread meant for arguing about God. Why are you here? You like being a dick for Jesus?


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.


Do you not agree that America as a whole is pretty stupid?


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It is not an attack if it is true.  You really shouldn't be surprised when you go looking for a fight that you actually get one.  Yes, I am a dick.  I admit it freely.  When are you going to admit it?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


We shine a light on the true inner ding. It ain't inspired by God I can tell you that.

You are why I'm an athiest. People like you. I love it! Thank you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.
> ...


I do! And most believe in God. Coincidence?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You and God are a joke


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I never claimed to be a saint.  I'm not trying to be your role model.  You should worry about yourself and let me worry about me.  You aren't here to be my friend.  You are here for one thing only... conflict.  You should be happy.  When you behave civilly, I will behave civilly.  How's that?


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I think it is you that should listen to him. Not once have I've seen Sam Harris degrade his opponents. You have instigated this several times here.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.
> ...


Sure.  Here's why....

Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn -- A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I doubt God will appreciate you throwing Him out with the bathwater, but that is your mistake to make, brother.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


See you in hell bro. You denied Jesus 3 times and don't even know I did that shit to you. You're fucked. Do you know what eternity is? I was sent to test you.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


lol


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


*Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn is an idiot.*


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I wouldn't count on no form of consciousness.  I would count on an eternity of knowing that what one had and never appreciated was taken away.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I would not have expected you to see it any other way.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


If a flawed man uses flawed logic to tell a fatally flawed story maybe God should have made a bigger dent on society than 2000 years ago in the most primitive part of the world then vanashed.

I doubt a God would cafe. The god you speak of is in your head.

You getting mad makes me feel you are doubting now too. What post opened your eyes?

If you truly believed a God existed and a heaven awaits you would never get angry. Angry shows doubt. Speaks volumes more than any nonsense you've said


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I worry about my soul every single day.  Nothing new.  But since I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me, I don't worry so much about the mistakes I make as much I do about the progression I take.  He uses it to progress men of goodwill.  Only a good man knows how bad he is, a bad man has no clue.  I have chosen the better portion than you and it will not be taken away.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You really shouldn't be surprised when you go looking for a fight that you actually get one. Yes, I am a dick. I admit it freely.




the admission of christianity has nothing to do with the religion of the Almighty nor theism, simply their 4th century political agenda.

.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, Christians get a free pass on the mistakes they make simply because they believe and feel guilty. Easiest cult to join.

You keep telling us what a good man you are. I'm not sure


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm not mad.  How can I be.  I have everlasting life.  What do you have?  There is only one of us here who will be taking this out on someone else and it won't be me.  I'm not here for you.  I am here for me.  What you intend for evil, He uses for my good.  Whatever happens to you is between you and God.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Your view of my faith is biased.  Your loss, not mine.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You are like a broken record.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes.  You were sent to test me, but you don't believe in hell.  I've denied Jesus way more than three times, brother.  He hasn't abandoned me yet.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.
so says the repeater ...


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  He's just a troll.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What have I repeated?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

the_human_being said:


> The common term for atheist is "idiot".


Should I believe the Mormon religion? How about Islam?

So I'm not an idiot as long as I pick any religion or does it have to be yours? Sounds like to you any religion will do.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side.  Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.
try yourself.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Matthew said:


> weird, believing in a god is the intellectual dead end based on all the evidence...There's no evidence for it.


What evidence would you accept?


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


That made no sense at all.  You on the other hand have repeated your 4th century rant like 1500 times.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I think I know what kind of atheists these people are.  The slow witted kind.
> ...


It certainly is an effective tactic for shutting down dissenting opinions.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

AnCap'n_Murica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You have to be an idiot to believe that God poofed fully grown land animals into existing one day but that's what a lot of theists believe because that's the best their ancestors could figure.

Accident? Maybe theirs life surrounding every star. Maybe theirs life in europa? You're so small and unknowing and unaware you just don't know.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Sure it is.  You claimed you weren't a socialist or a commie.  I assert that you are and that they are related to your atheism.  How is your stating your political affiliations not relevant to this?


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Caractacus said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > [See if you can figure out this message.
> ...


You missed it.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.




no one is throwing anything at you that is not from the dishonesty of your OP, moralist.


----------



## Caractacus (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> You missed it.



I didn't watch the entirety of the video tbh- his giddiness was rather creepy.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


How do you know I don't?  Do you have any proof that I don't?  Can you prove to me that you love someone?  Can you prove to me what a strawberry tastes like.  It seems that some things can only be proven by trying them.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Caractacus said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You missed it.
> ...


Like I said before... you missed it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I told someone the other day Christians believe democracy and capitalism are God's favorites. You feel your capitalism is what Jesus would do? He would absolutely approve of social security and public schools. So Jesus was a socialist.

And he said give Caesar his taxes cheap ass.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And I couldn't be happier for you to believe that either.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > weird, believing in a god is the intellectual dead end based on all the evidence...There's no evidence for it.
> ...


He could have and send another son. Only this time impregnate a guy. That'd be a miracle


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Maybe you should take that up with Him when you meet Him.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

.
christianity is a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion and is why modern christians gravitate to differential economics to facilitate their survival as an expense while brandishing disapproval for economies of common equity.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> christianity is a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion and is why modern christians gravitate to differential economics to facilitate their survival as an expense while brandishing disapproval for economies of common equity.


There you go again with that 4th Century crap.  Man you are predictable.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


ding said:


> Sure it is. You claimed you weren't a socialist or a commie. I assert that you are and that they are related to your atheism. How is your stating your political affiliations not relevant to this?




just clarifying where you are coming from christian  ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


He knows more about the history of your cult than you do


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 3, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I think I talked to him for about a week and didn't know he was a Christian.

I've known born again, Mormons and jehovas who waited before they admitted they were in cults. I have never met a Scientologist but want to.


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Maybe you should become his apostle.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


It doesn't matter what you say you remember.  All anyone needs to do is read..


----------



## ding (Jan 3, 2017)

Caractacus said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You missed it.
> ...


You should have because the ending is worth it if you know what to look for.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I welcome dissenting opinions. What I loathe is idiotic responses and personal jabs when the subject of debate is no longer relevant.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Yet you cannot provide evidence of this. I can and already have.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Point of Order....Your Honor.  You haven't bothered to read the thread.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



And how about those theoretical physics you keep referring to.   Have you seen a parallel universe lately? You must have because how could they be possible otherwise.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I'm sure you welcome dissenting opinions you agree with.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You really don't think these things through,  do you?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Feel free to elaborate professor.  This should be good.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Nah.  I'm having more fun watching you expose your ignorance.  By all means,  don't let me stop you. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You must be busy observing a parallel universe right now.  Sorry to bother you, do carry on.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

I believe some of these people must have somehow crossed over from a parallel universe where thinking isn't encouraged.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I believe some of these people must have somehow crossed over from a parallel universe where thinking isn't encouraged.


You must tell us how you managed it,  sometime...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I believe some of these people must have somehow crossed over from a parallel universe where thinking isn't encouraged.
> ...


What do you mean?  It can't exist if you didn't know about it.  Right?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You're the one talking about stupidworld.  I thought,  based on your posts,  you we're telling us all where you're from. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Of course if parallel universes don't exist, and mainstream theoretical physics are bull shit, then there couldn't possibly be anything besides what you see.   Someone should let Michio Kaku know about your astounding conclusions.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

ding said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > weird, believing in a god is the intellectual dead end based on all the evidence...There's no evidence for it.
> ...


Put the shoe on the other foot.  Make them explain why they think they believe what they say they believe.  The onus is entirely on the atheists in this thread.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Not my conclusions.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Suddenly so neutral.  I wonder why?


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That is not a dissenting opinion. To be a dissenting opinion it has to differ from mine.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You still need to provide evidence of your assertion on post #404 about the  blind dogmatic faith of Atheists. I challenged you in post #414. All I hear are crickets chirping.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Sorry, what post number was that?


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 3, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You still need to


ding said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Atheists have trust in reason. If I told you the dog down the street told me to shop at Walmart, you and hopefully everyone else would believe I was crazy... or hallucinating, or I was on drugs. But if a holy book talks about a snake or a donkey that talks people don't even give it a second guess. Now I'm not saying every Christian takes all of the bible literally but many do.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 3, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


No I don't.  I've made the assertion, it's up to you to refute it.  End of story.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


And I'm not saying that every atheist posting on this thread is an idiot.  But some are.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Do your own homework junior.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Ahem, "*Argument by assertion* is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely _asserting_ that it is true, regardless of contradiction."
Argument by assertion - RationalWiki


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playing


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


And you evidently have less than nothing to work with.  Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum?  I hope not.  That would be sad.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


And you evidently have less than nothing to work with.  Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum?  I hope not.  That would be sad.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


And yet you seem unable to refute it.  You certainly don't demonstrate anything different.  You are as wedded to your beliefs as any religious fundamentalist.    I wonder if that could be more obvious?


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


How can one refute when there is no evidence or example of it. 

It's like me saying "Religious people are always posting pictures of cats and never argue in any debates". Then you respond with "Care to show evidence of this" and I merely state "Just read"

I would like like an idiot if this was the way I carried on in a debate forum.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


For the historic record, here's where mischaracterizations begin. Post # 70.  False and misleading assumptions based on conjecture.  When did I mention God?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Documentation of what?  Anecdotal philosophy? 
http://www.alternet.org/story/143674/are_the_"new_atheists"_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

I also found this.  Probably nothing more on the subject though.

This new breed of militant atheists are as intolerant as any religious fundamentalists | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Just one more.  That's really it though, no more after this.

How ‘new atheists’ are just as dangerous as the religious extremists they rail against


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Interesting read.  However,  since I have never attempted to tell anyone else that *they* should abandon their theistic beliefs,  or that being a theist was morally inferior,  or,  in any other way tried to "convert" anyone to atheism,  I don't really see what the article has to do with me. 

Every post I have made on this forum has been to defend myself against an attack on my choice to be an atheist. 

And whether you want to acknowledge it,  or not to tell an entire group that they are intellectually inferior (dead end)  *is* an attack. So,  don't bother insisting that you have not attacked anyone.  Because the fact is you have.  You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't make you innocent;  it just makes you dishonest. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

OK, maybe just one more.
The link between religious fundamentalism and militant atheism


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


How would someone like you even begin to know what honesty is when you are so clearly self deluded?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


See?  That's an attack. And unfounded.  This would be why I either mock you or ignore you.  Because every time I give you the benefit of a respectful answer,  you can't help being a dick.  Do feel free to fuck off. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.


...and fuck off again. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.
> ...


Thank you, I'll do that.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Now that Professor Czerno has given everyone a comprehensive lesson in theoretical quantum physics,  we can now say with complete certainty that a parallel universe where God does exist could never be possible.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

I don't want you pop culture atheists to spend much time thinking about post #745.  You might hurt yourselves.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I thought you were talking about people here on this forum. I asked you what post and you told me to read. 

Let's take a look at you link, shall we. First I see a lot of mudslinging before any evidence has been given


> They are as close minded as they seem to be almost pathologically certain of their beliefs





> The New Atheist movement is being led by several egomaniac intolerant fundamentalists





> men who discredit whatever they're selling by their tawdry proselytizing and commercial opportunism combined with absurdly big egos and a deadly certainty that they and _only they_ are right





> egoistical internet-savvy swami posing in hagiographic photos while collecting birthday greetings and good wishes from his deluded (not terribly bright) followers.



I can see why you like him. The insults come fast and furious. Lets look at his argument shall we.
He talks about Richard Dawkins selling merchandise on his site and then goes into these comments:


> Rich also gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “Excellent. Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed I have to order two more.” Another satisfied customer writes, “I love it, but you should really consider offering a Scarlet A necklace.” The next reviewer gives it only four stars, but moving on, Yvonne gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “It looked awesome on my black bag.” Luke gives the pin Five Stars! too and notes, “Great product. I actually turned mine into a pendant by bending the pin and attaching a wire loop.” Then we get back into four star territory: “This is great, but I would much rather have it as a necklace.”


Really??? Is this really worthy of attention for anyone who is trying to assert that Atheists are as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Oh wait, here comes the poison. He then goes on to state: "The comment that most interested me was the one from Rich: “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.” That really brought back the memories."
Again *“Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.” *
The whole sentence is double quoted so I'm not sure if the memories part is from Rich or the author of the piece. 

There you have it. Atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalists because one Atheist on a Richard Dawkins site back in 2008 stated *“Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”  
*
So half way through this article The author finally goes after Dawkins. After he throws out tons of more insults of course. Let's look at the first.



> But what Dawkins says he’s most proud of is the part of his web-site called “Convert’s Corner” where, as he told Bill Maher in an in-terview on Maher’s TV show in 2008, “You can go and read all the testimonies of people who have been converted!” Then he said, “When I’m on my deathbed I’ll have a tape recorder switched on because people like me are victims of malicious stories after they’re dead of people saying they had a deathbed conversion when they didn’t.” Maher looked a bit puzzled, so Dawkins explained that he suspects creationists may already be plotting to do this to him and pointed out that “they now claim Darwin had a deathbed conversion.”


Dawkins is correct about this. I have actually seen it in many of his debates. People also claimed Hitchens would have a deathbed conversion. He didn't. I remember myself on a few Creationist sites that they claimed Darwin had a deathbed conversion. So what Dawkins is saying is true. Why is the author even talking about this?

Let's see what happens next.


> When Maher asked Dawkins about The God Delusion, Dawkins said little about the book’s content but exclaimed, “It’s sold a million and a half copies!” Then Maher, like an enthusiastic puppy scampering around a big dog, yelped, “And now it’s in paperback, it will be even more available!” Maher paused to take a breath then added, “I’m your biggest fan!” Then Dawkins, slipping into his rock star mode, explained that he has so many fans because “I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”


First of all, let's get rid of the quote mining. Maher' s exact words were "Thanks for joining us and I don't have to tell you how big a fan I am" The colorful language and jabs really shows a lot of immaturity with this author also. Dawkins is asked why the success with his book and he comments that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens books have similar sales and then responds with "“I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.” 
How is that comment in any way shape or form similar to being as bad as Christian Fundamentalists? 

I could post some quotes by these Fundamentalists
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” -Richard Furman
“Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.” –Jimmy Swaggart
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." -Jerry Falwell 
“Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” –Rev. Joseph Morecraft

2 quotes by Ted Hagger
“We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.”
“A fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age.”

So you think Richard Dawkins and other Atheists are on par with Christian Fundamentalists?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists?  Maybe not.  He merely provides superficial pop culture atheists with the impression of having a persuasive argument.  Clearly atheists are every bit as intolerant as anyone else.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Here are some typical examples of the kind of idiots spawned by the likes of Dawkins.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Let's see if I can help you atheist scholars with your problem.   Assuming you can learn.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Atheists need lots of help.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Statistically atheists tend to be more dull and boring than the average per capita.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Im glad you aren't elaborating for someone who's not even listening to you. Don't jump through his hoops.


----------



## rdean (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?


Because magical creation and "Noah's Ark" as literal history are so very intellectual.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


It's your turn to pontificate your illusions


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

rdean said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


And without those fables they have nuthin


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


And if the talking snake isn't true neither is the virgin birth


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You keep saying " when did I mention God". Isn't he what the thread is about?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I'll bet Czerno is a real nice guy and very intelligent too......in a parallel universe.


And this one


----------



## hobelim (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



who has chosen to remain blind?

Apparently many believers and unbelievers alike who continue to argue with each other over what scripture is not about.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




I did not say that God will become real for you if you believe.

In fact I said the exact opposite.

Start off without any belief or unsubstantiated assumption, including your own certainty that the universe was not poofed into existence as described according to genesis, because thats not what the story is even about.

Maybe before you conclude that scripture is false you should know what the stories are actually about?

If you want to dismiss the entire bible as nonsense because snakes cant talk you will deprive yourself of the insight that whenever you are disputing with someone who claims to believe that God became a man you are arguing with the exact same elusive species of talking serpent described in great detail in the very scriptures that you do not believe in.

Its really no skin off my nose if you continue to walk in darkness wasting your time.

Believers will believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come and unbelievers will continue to not believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come , both of you as clueless as basket of shrews..


----------



## hobelim (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> I rather think I have a rather pure mind. I have a rather strong understanding of right from wrong.




If you read genesis and did not immediately realize that a talking serpent represents a type of human being, you are not as swift as you like to imagine yourself to be.....

What you have done amounts to arguing that the story of the three pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses even though the story is not about talking pigs building houses and consequently what it is actually about remains above your grasp.



How do you expect to perceive the living God who is unseen when you can't even perceive what a story written by bronze age goat herders is about even though the words are written down and you can look and look and look at them under a microscope all day long?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Except that's just it.  The Bible was 100% accurate, incontestible fact, right up until *science* found evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun, and is actually spinning on its own axis.  Then the stories about God stopping the sun in the sky became allegorical.  But, everything else was *absolutely 100% acurate, and indisputable fact*!  Welll...until *science* discovered evidence that the earth was *billions* of years old.  Then the "days" in the creation story becam allegorical.  But the rest of the Bible was still 100% indisputably accurate, factual history.  Wellll...until Darwin discovered evidence to support the theory of Evolution.  Then suddenly, God didn't create all of the plants, and animals personally, and individually; rather he put the "stuff' of life together, and *directed* the evolution...

Do you begin to see the point here, Hobelim?  Every part of the Bible that is not rules and regulations is being rendered "allegorical", meaningless, and useless by the sciences.  So, once there is nothing left but allegory, fables, and a set of rules, what makes the Bible any different than any other self-help book?  The entire authority behind the *rules* in the Bible was because it was the undisputed word of god, as evidenced by the accuracy, and infalibility of the stories within.

So, with those stories all being disproven, and relegated to allegory, then where is the authority of the Bible?  Where is the evidence that it is any more useful than "Men Are From Mar, Women Are From Venus"?



hobelim said:


> Its really no skin off my nose if you continue to walk in darkness wasting your time.
> 
> Believers will believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come and unbelievers will continue to not believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come , both of you as clueless as basket of shrews..


You seem to think that my atheism comes from rejecting *just* the Christian Bible.  It doesn't.  I mean, it started there.  But, I have done all of the things you insist that one must do to have God revealed to them.  And do you know what was revealed to me about God?  That it is a myth; a superstition; a fantasy.   Now, please do not misunderstand my words, as certain zealots here insist on doing.  My telling you this, in no way, is meant to suggest that you need to give up your belief, and think as I do.  I.  Don't.  Care.  It's not my job to convert you, any more than it is your job to convert me.  All of our jobs are *supposed* to be to live, and let live; allow everyone to find their own cosmic thruthes, whatever those may be.  Unfortunately, Theists, more often than not, seem really uncomfortable with the knowledge that there are people out there who recognise their fantasies for what they are, and feel the need to do their level best to rid the world of anyone who doesn't think like them.

Me?  I don't care if you wanna believe in God, any more than I care if you wanna believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or pretty pink unicorns, and Big Fluffy Dragons.  I just.  Don't.  Care.  All I ask is to be left alone with my disbelief, and stop trying to use every means possible - up to, and including the civil laws of my government - to try and force me to behave as if I agree with your fairy tales, and the ethics derived from them.

And I am, in no way, absolute in my disbelief.  If, and when, actual objective evidence is presented, I will happily change my position.  However, with a pure mind, light heart, and clear conscience I can tell you that your method of revelation was exactly what *brought me to my atheism*.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> So, with those stories all being disproven, and relegated to allegory, then whhere is the authority of the Bible?




 Screw the authority of the bible. It was written by primitive men who claimed contact with extraterrestrial creatures during some type of altered state of consciousness.

Knowing it is a myth,  fable,  fairy tale,  allegory, whatever, does not equate with understanding the hidden story conveyed or knowing what the allegory teaches..

And I do not believe in God anymore than you believe in pink unicorns.

I have seen and heard the words of the living God with my own eyes and ears.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > I rather think I have a rather pure mind. I have a rather strong understanding of right from wrong.
> ...


I refer you to my previous post about the bible only being considered allegorical because science keeps proving to Judaeo Christian Theists that the things they accept as factual accounts in the Bible can't possibly be.  So, in order to not have to discard the Bible as made-up, they just shjift their clains to, "Well, of coures no one takes *that part* seriously, silly!  It was just meant as allegory!"

Now, you can get away with that, right up until the *historical* inaccuracies in the Bible begin to be revealed.  The slavery of Israel, for instance.  The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers.  Yet, there is not a single record of Israelites ever having been the "guests" of the Egyptians.  Yet, the Bible insists it happened.  What?  The Egyptians just forgot to mention an entire race of people they held captive for over 150 years?!?!  Or is it more likely that it just.  Never.  Happened?  And that is just one example.

The Bible is a nice collection of fairy tales, and myths.  But, that is all it is.   So, if you want to convince me of divinity, I can promise you that you will *not* doing it by convincing me how accurate the Bible is.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > So, with those stories all being disproven, and relegated to allegory, then whhere is the authority of the Bible?
> ...


Well, good for you.  Give me his number, and I'll give him a call, and we can chat.  No.  Ya know what?  *Don't* do that.

I have done all of the things you have said one needs to do to 'see" God.  You think you are original?!?!  You think you are the first person to give me that advice?!?!  The first, and *only* time I took that advice seriously, the man who gave it to me didn't just *tell me* what I had to do; he *showed me*.  He, and I spent *years* purifying my mind, body, and "soul".  I did this because, tat that time I still wanted so badly to believe - to understand.  And...

...I heard nothing.  Nothing but my own rational mind mocking me for wasting so much time looking for something that was never there.  So, by all means, please.  Believe in God.  Be absolutely convinced that you heard the voice of God.  Shalom.  But, please don't pretend that you will convince any rational person of your fantasy, and do not presume what experiences others have, and have not had in their lives.  It's more than a little condescending, and offensive.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The atheists who claim that god is not possible, or that god doesn't exist are just as deluded. Just because we have no mean now to detect a god doesn't mean that there isn't one. Personally, I'll wait for the actual evidence either way.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Just because we cannot presently measure something does not mean that it doesn't exist. Gravity existed long before we ever discovered it.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Do I think there's a god? Could be, but so far no actual proof. That's the best answer I can give. Just because today, we have no proof doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
And tons of theists are 100% convinced that there's an invisible superhero.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Sure:


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Here is an example of dishonesty. CA asserts back in post 404 that "human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists."
I challenged him to provide proof of his assertion back on post 412. After skirting the issue or telling me to read the posts he finally puts up a link. He doesn't highlight any particular part of the link so it means that he agrees with the whole piece. The piece is titled "New Atheists as bad as Christian Fundamentalists" It criticizes Richard Dawkins. So when I make an attempt to argue the piece your first response is "Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists?  Maybe not."
You are now back-peddling and your original argument is null and void. 

As an Atheist I am intolerant. Intolerant to hypocrites, intolerant to bigots, intolerant to those who want to forcibly push their religion on me, intolerant to those who do nothing but berate, insult and attack others.


----------



## Tuatara (Jan 4, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


So what you are saying is scripture is vague and contradictory.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



I asked if you THINK there is a god.  You didn't answer the question which means you aren't being intellectually honest with me.  You're being stubborn and won't admit that if hooked up to a lie detector that could 100% read your heart and mind and then I put the gun to your head and you were forced to be honest you would say FINE, I DON'T BELIEVE.  And why do you not believe?  Because there is zero evidence.  So the question is, why are you on the fence about something that has zero evidence?  

Because you are a pussy.  Think about what you wrote.  "Do I think there's a god?"  Then you puss out and say "could be", but then immediately admit there is "zero evidence/proof."    

So then give me a couple reasons why you are on the fence about this?  Why god is just as probable as no god.  Explain to us all why you think there's an equal chance a god does exist.  

And what other things do you believe without evidence?  Gravity existed before we knew it but God's not gravity.  Gravity is a scientific thing.  God's all in your head.  

You probably fall for the watchmaker argument.  That makes you uncomfortable that everything created must have a creator.  So since you can't wrap your brain around that, you remain willfully ignorant.  LOL

And what god are we talking about anyways?  Generic creator thing or sent his son God?  I'm agnostic about generic god too.  But these people are secretly Jesus freaks.  I thought Ding was just a theist and I think he may have even said he was a deist one time but yesterday he came out of the closet.  He's a jesus freak.  And he admitted it's ok for him to lie because he's a jesus freak.  He can be a dick too.  Isn't Jesus great?  Easiest religion to join.  You don't have to do SHIT but put 10% in the pot.   

Gravity was something that was always there we just didn't know it or understand how to explain it.  Please show me how you would attempt to prove god exists like we did gravity.  This is a good point you make because gravity isn't a solid.  Maybe Gravity is god?  It sure is a powerful thing.  Man is the universe fascinating or what?  The idea that we are being pulled by our sun to go around and around and the entire universe is swirling around too.  Absolutely amazing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Why could there be?  I can explain how/why/when we made it up.  You explain to me the reasons you think there "could be".  How?  Why?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



I'm intolerant of ignorance too.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I like to think that asking is the universe made by intelligent design is a plausible question, it's something that man will likely search for forever when looking at possible origins of this universe and what may or may not be found outside it.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a closed mind about all this. Why is that?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Sounds just like you refuted nothing.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Which illusions are those?  Not that it matters because you dummies will fill in the blanks with something.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why are you people all so universally stupid?  Or are you just purposefully obtuse?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Like I said to Czernobyl "I like to think that asking is the universe made by intelligent design is a plausible question, it's something that man will likely search for forever when looking at possible origins of this universe and what may or may not be found outside it.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a closed mind about all this. Why is that?"


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don't think anyone knows whether the universe was made by intelligent design or by chance. We're not there yet. But you seem to think that you've cracked that nut.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Holy shit!  These atheists have to be the dumbest and least honest people on the planet.  Maybe even the least honest in any parallel universe as well.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Holy shit!  These atheists have to be the dumbest and least honest people on the planet.  Maybe even the least honest in any parallel universe as well.


  You dummies need to personalize and assign motives all the time because you're too fucking stupid to even know what your argument is.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Holy shit!  These atheists have to be the dumbest and least honest people on the planet.  Maybe even the least honest in any parallel universe as well.
> ...


What camp are you in? Because you talk so much smack, I can't wait to hear your arguments.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Have any of you fucking dummies made any progress in substantiating the non existence of nothing.....the premise for your non existant logic..


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


What the fuck are you talking about?  This is a thread about atheism.   I don't have a camp.   Fucking stupid.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Because the question itself is based on an unproven assumption.  "Is the universe created by Intelligent Design?"  Before asking this question, does not one first have to Ask, "Is there evidence of a *designer"*?  After all, without a designer, the answer to your question is rather self evident, isn't it?  You see, this is the flaw of most reasoning that leads to theism: every path of reason starts from a position of presuming the existence of divinity.  From there, it proceeds to arrange the evidence to support that presumption.

I prefer to start from the origin with a null assumption:  God does not exist.  Now, offer objective evidence to prove God does, and I will happily move off of the null position.  From there, we can happily explore all other aspects of divinity, from consciousness, to divine ethics, to creation.  But, first, I need to have evidence of the existence of divinity presented.

Otherwise, I remain comfortably in the "God does not exist" position.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  None of us has made progress to "substantiating the non existence of nothing".  Why?  Because no one is attempting to do that.  You really need to see someone about your penchant for typing gibberish, though.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You think that way because you know as much about science as you do religion.   Pretty much not at all.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Evidently atheism doesn't stand on it's own arguments.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That's just it.  CA won't answer that question, because he is nothing but an arrogant coward.  He wants to sit, and snipe at people who have *actual original thoughts*, all while hiding what he believes, or thinks, so that he can appear to be intellectually superior.  Don't bother responding to him, except to mock him.  It is all he deserves.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Because the question itself is based on an unproven assumption.  "Is the universe created by Intelligent Design?"  Before asking this question, does not one first have to Ask, "Is there evidence of a *designer"*?  After all, without a designer, the answer to your question is rather self evident, isn't it?  You see, this is the flaw of most reasoning that leads to theism: every path of reason starts from a position of presuming the existence of divinity.  From there, it proceeds to arrange the evidence to support that presumption.
> ...


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


No, the actual truth is that you can't make a persuasive argument for atheism.   That's why you constantly distract with superficial nonsense and avoid answering real questions.  That's why you've had to personalize all your arguments throughout this entire thread.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Atheism stands on its own arguments just fine.  You are just as ignorant of what Atheism is as you are religion, and the sciences.  It's kind of sad, really...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You get what you give bitch.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It does?  It stands on it's own?  I guess it's just unfortunate that you can't seem to address the premise of atheism.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm done being polite with you dumb motherfuckers.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Well you aren't buying any of the arguments for god either so does it matter that you're keeping an open mind and I'm not?  When you learn some evidence that moves you, let me know.  

I just believe I know where god came from


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

I wonder if any of these scholars watched the Stephan Molyneux videos.  They should since they obviously have no idea what atheism is or how to argue it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You've been polite?  LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I wonder if any of these scholars watched the Stephan Molyneux videos.  They should since they obviously have no idea what atheism is or how to argue it.


How should we argue it?  What would be compelling to you?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Considering how dishonest and ignorant you are.....yes.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if any of these scholars watched the Stephan Molyneux videos.  They should since they obviously have no idea what atheism is or how to argue it.
> ...


Didn't watch the videos, did you dummy.   I gave you dummies all the ammunition you need already.  You're just too fucking stupid to know how to use it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...





Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Oh.  You want me to persuadew you that *you* should be an Athist.  *Persuasive* writing, also known as the *argument* essay, uses logic and reason to show that one idea is more legitimate than another. *It attempts to persuade a reader to adopt a certain point of view or to take a particular action.*

Not my job, and hasn't been my purpose.  I have bmerely been expressing *my* reasons for being an atheist.  Not my job to convince anyone else what their theological position should, or should not be.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


No stupid, all you've done is tell people why they shouldn't believe in God or religion.  You've failed entirely to make any kind of argument in support of atheism.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I did watch that video.  The question is did you?  Because you are breaking all the rules.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No,  I haven't,  retard.  I've told people why *I* don't believe in God.  I couldn't give so much as a single little shit what anyone else believes,  or doesn't.  I just want those who so ardently do believe to leave me the fuck alone until they have objective evidence,  and quit trying to pass civil laws trying to force me to behave as if I agree with their theology.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You did?  Well then I guess you're just a little too slow to understand them.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Feel free to make an argument for atheism any time.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Nope.  Not my job.  If you are unsatisfied with your theological position, then do a bit of research,  and find out for yourself what theology makes sense to you,  just like I did. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Theological position?  There you go again.  Still no argument in support of atheism.  There must be some intelligent atheists around here somewhere.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



Two points of interest.  First,  why do you think atheists should feel the need to make any arguments in favour of atheism? 

Second,  am I to understand from your mocking response that you do not perceive atheism to be a theological position? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Answers
1.  Are you fucking kidding or what?
2. As stated over and over: Atheists and religious fundamentalists share many behavioral characteristics..


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I'm asking what you believe, ex. Atheist, or theist... maybe which religion, if any... just to see why you're so upset.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



No,  I'm not "fucking kidding". You keep insisting that atheists are no different that fundamental Christians,  yet you seem really annoyed that I won't act Luke a fundamental christian,  and attempt to proselytise you.  How strange. 




Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The complex universe leads one to ask is there a designer? A legitimate question in my book. But so far no proof.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Why? Complexity requires a designer?  And, what leads you to that conclusion?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You still haven't proven that a god is not possible.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No, that isn't why you're asking.  Not at all.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You're acting like one right now.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


So you're embarrassed to answer? You'll say no, so go ahead.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


By not doing what fundamental Christians do,  I'm doing what fundamental Christians do? Reason really isn't one of your strengths is it? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You dummies should keep speculating and trying to assign motives.  Because that's what you do best.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You are a child.  I don't why I'm even bothering with this.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You're probably one of those guys who worships a brown Jesus, you're all really upset. And with good reason.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That's actually funny.    I won't behave like you want me to behave, thereby confirming your bias against Atheists, so you call me a child, as if i am the one with the problem.

Run along, now.  You are dismissed.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 4, 2017)

Tuatara said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



Exactly,  and intentionally so, written in a way that would divert the superstitious and irrational from ever grasping what the stories are actually about which requires rational and intelligent rumination to comprehend.


So he drove the man out and to the east of Eden he placed the cherubim *with a flaming and flashing sword that turns in every direction* *to guard the way to the tree of life.*"


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)




----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)




----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Are you beginning to catch on?  Huh dummies?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Now, you can get away with that, right up until the *historical* inaccuracies in the Bible begin to be revealed. The slavery of Israel, for instance. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers. Yet, there is not a single record of Israelites ever having been the "guests" of the Egyptians. Yet, the Bible insists it happened. What? The Egyptians just forgot to mention an entire race of people they held captive for over 150 years?!?! Or is it more likely that it just. Never. Happened? And that is just one example.




I have never argued for the historical accuracy of the bible. You must be confusing me with someone else.

In that one example you have only highlighted the limited depth of your mental acuity.

That egyptian slavery that you see no record of persists to this day in the form of cultic ritual worship and sacrifice that inspired solomonic temple practices that morphed into catholicism and merged religion with politics into a many headed money making beast that kept the population subjugated like slaves to ignorant, irrational, and superstitious beliefs and compulsory degrading ritual practices so they could be easily penned in and fleeced like dumb unthinking animals on a regular basis..

Who are all the people held captive by ignorance and bound by degrading practices that you dispute with,  going like sheep to the slaughter getting their pockets picked while being deceived and deliberately confused with specious falsehoods for their entire lives if not slaves?


Where is the historical record for what is right in front of your eyes?

Did it never happen or are you just blind?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


My argument for atheism it religion and the human mind that made God up.

You have fairytale only difference is yours happened 2000 years ago instead of a long time ago in a land far far away

Are you a baby? Babies believe anything you tell them


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Not will i. just improbable and unnecessary


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> Have any of you fucking dummies made any progress in substantiating the non existence of nothing.....the premise for your non existant logic..



OP: 





Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?




how about it spider are you going to craw out of your hole and link your biased video to the text of your OP, the duality belongs to you christian as not spiritually dumb but as your video, Spiritually dead.


_*Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?*_


what perception is that spider ... * is it from a book.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You people are evidently too stupid to realize how embarrassed you should be right now.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Okay, I'm gonnna try this one last time.

Based on your stupid videos - thanks for that, by the way; there's twenty minutes I'll never get back to learn absolutely nothing -your position is that, regarding the question of the existence of God, the only valid position is to take no position. REALLY?!?!?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



That's because you are doing a horrible job arguing your side of this.  I though about this last night.  Your religion does a horrible job of explaining itself.  Only people who want to believe it do.  Otherwise, you should be able to point me to the #1 site for converting people to christianity.  The best website that lays it all out for the undecided or unbeliever.  Is there such a sight?  No there is not.  You can pick any one of them they are all bat shit crazy.  Not one of them can be held up as the best sight for converting fools.  I'm going to go look and see if I can find anything.  I'll get back to you.      

Think about it.  You recognize a fairy tale when you hear one right?  They start off, "once upon a time in a land far far away" and then the story is full of stuff that could never happen in real life.  You know its not real because it's not dated and there is no real location.  

But your pappy and mammy and preacher tell you a story just as unbelievable but because they dated the story and told you it happened in the middle east you fucking believed it.  How stupid are you?  LOL.

Heaven is full of idiots.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don't think he's a theist.  I think he's just an arrogant,  sanctimonious agnostic atheist.  He doesn't have the balls to just say,  "I am of the opinion there is no God, ", so he has to try to mock anyone who does. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



You will have to do better than this if you are going to convince us we should be embarrassed.  I compared your religion to a fairy tale and I explained the minor differences between your religion and fairy tales.  They are very similar in that both tell stories that are not realistic.  The only real difference is maybe there was a guy named Jesus 2016 years ago who was actually crucified.  But he wasn't the messiah.  His mom wasn't a virgin when she had him.  If you believe that you should be embarrassed.  

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” 

So did Jonas really spend three days in a whale's belly and live to tell about it?  

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _– Ken Ham


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


But he started this thread saying basically atheists are stupid for not seeing what is obvious to the masses.  First of all, what a piss poor argument.  Not exactly a good argument for why we should believe in god.  The masses once thought the earth was flat because to them it was obvious.  

The fact that it's easy for the masses to swallow the idea that a creator exists causes me concern.  I hate it that Paul went to Greece and so many Greeks bought that story.  

Basically what jackoff is saying is that believing in god is easy for most people because it makes them comfortable.  People don't like not knowing the answers so of course "must be god" comes very easy to a lot of people.  I think back to my Greek Grandmother with a 3rd grade education.  She was very religious.  I doubt she questioned it even for a second.   

My buddy and I got into an argument about if there is a god and I learned something very interesting about theists.  You know how they suggest we are unhappy?  Actually it's the other way around.  My buddy basically admitted that if he believed there was no heaven he would be very disappointed and depressed.  Because as he sees it, "this life sucks"  He said, "if this is all there was I'd kill myself".  So heaven is for people who aren't completely happy here and now.

I don't think there is anything after this but that doesn't make me want to kill myself.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Constructive Douchebag is too smart for us, he must be a theist. Him and dingbat, two peas in a pod.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.

I have to disagree, bing is their sidekick.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 4, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I found that site that is good for converting.  Maybe they should start making these arguments:

Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors | Word on Fire

*1. GOOD LITERATURE AND REASONABLE WRITING.*
Reasonable atheists eventually become theists because they _are_ reasonable; and furthermore, because they are honest. They are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads; and in many cases the evidence comes to the atheist most coherently and well-presented through the writings of believers in God.

*2. “EXPERIMENTATION” WITH PRAYER AND THE WORD OF GOD.*

*3. HISTORICAL STUDY OF THE GOSPELS.*

*4. HONEST PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING.*

*5. REASONABLE BELIEVERS.*

*6. MODERN ADVANCES AND LIMITATIONS IN SCIENCE.*

*7. EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION.*

*8. BEAUTY.*


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.
10/4 Sealy
_*

through the writings of believers in God.

*_
CA, are your videos the same as the writings ... is that just the 4th century "edition" or is everything included, the spoken religion as well.

not everyone that is not an atheist would read further a corrupt book to still know the Almighty.


----------



## Right Smarts (Jan 4, 2017)

I reject atheism on grounds that it has no compelling positive, supporting argument. From my experiences debating atheists, I can safely say atheism is little more than a psychological crutch for morally-and-psychology-weak people.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I reject atheism on grounds that it has no compelling positive, supporting argument. From my experiences debating atheists, I can safely say atheism is little more than a psychological crutch for morally-and-psychology-weak people.


Well, you're certainly entitled your opinion...


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

To summarize.  
Atheism is not a philosophy, not a religion, not a belief system of any kind.  Atheism is simply the non belief of theism.  Period.   End of story.
Yet people who claim to be atheists all behave like religious fundamentalists.  They are dogmatically intolerant of diverging views, they continually make statements of blind faith in things they have no knowledge of.   Atheists constantly postulate theories about what can or cannot exist.   But with what evidence?  Where is the evidence for nothing and non existence?   Atheists cannot concede that everything they think they know could be wrong.   All typical human behavioral manifestations of people with closed minds.  Maybe dead end isn't the best description for all the pop culture atheists on this thread, it's more like they're riding a pseudo intellectual merry go round.  Round and round but going nowhere.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> To summarize.
> Atheism is not a philosophy, not a religion, not a belief system of any kind.  Atheism is simply the non belief of theism.  Period.   End of story.
> Yet people who claim to be atheists all behave like religious fundamentalists.  They are dogmatically intolerant of diverging views, they continually make statements of blind faith in things they have no knowledge of.   Atheists constantly postulate theories about what can or cannot exist.   But with what evidence?  Where is the evidence for nothing and non existence?   Atheists cannot concede that everything they think they know could be wrong.   All typical human behavioral manifestations of people with closed minds.  Maybe dead end isn't the best description for all the pop culture atheists on this thread, it's more like they're riding a pseudo intellectual merry go round.  Round and round but going nowhere.


To summarize:

You are entirely full of shit,  and spew opinions based on your own prejudices,  completely ignoring anything anyone who does not buy your bullshit has to say. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > To summarize.
> ...


Who could possibly argue with such impeccable logic?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Certainly not you.  You are incapable of logic. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Thanks for straitening me out on that.  It's clear to me now that I can really learn a lot from someone of your prodigious intellect.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

.
not to mention the anarchist is the aggressor without commitment ... did someone step on his cross.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> not to mention the anarchist is the aggressor without commitment ... did someone step on his cross.


Another scholar weighs in.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

.
tell us is atheism evil ...


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> tell us is atheism evil ...


Atheism doesn't purport to claim any morality.  Therefore concepts of good and evil are irrelevant in this context.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.
_*Atheism doesn't purport to claim any morality ...
*_

this is your error not theirs. and no there is nothing evil in atheism only those who willingly believe it to be.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.
_*Atheism doesn't purport to claim any morality ...*
_
that the statement in itself is an evil enclave of religiosity for some, you.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


OK.  If you say so.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


. 
I'm not an atheist the spoken religion has no set following the same for morality. exclusionaries are fools.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Alrighty then.  Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 4, 2017)

.
I'm left wondering what your contribution has been, I'm certainly missing the punch line. hopefully someone can bring it to light.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 4, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> I'm left wondering what your contribution has been, I'm certainly missing the punch line. hopefully someone can bring it to light.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars:   Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations.   How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


As if the fact of your incredible dull stupidity needed further emphasis.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars:   Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations.   How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?


That would indeed be the $64 thousand dollar question.


----------



## yiostheoy (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Alrighty then.  Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.


Constructive Anarchy did you get anything out of this running dialogue?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


At least mudda isn't falling for your con. You know he's right don't you? I don't know there's no God and you don't know either. No one knows. Christians are believing the story told in their neck of the woods, Muslims in the middle East do the same, Mormons story seems to be popular in Utah and Hindu and Budda are popular in other parts of the world. Besides your cult do you buy the other cult stories?

I'm curious to see if you are capable of intelligently responding to this or will you do what theists do and change the subject


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You are an amazingly stupid little person.   When will dummies like you understand that whatever I believe has no relevance to the argument? When will people like you stop being so fucking dim witted?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars:   Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations.   How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?


Do you believe people have been abducted by aliens?

No I don't consider any god sightings credible.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Thanks for not replying to my questions you exceeded my expectations.

You're the reason this conversation doesn't progress.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Alrighty then.  Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.
> ...


Yes.  I learned that pop culture atheists are even more stupid and dishonest than I thought they were.   Every time they post they validate everything I've said about their childish and predictable behavior.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Stupid is believing in an invisible superhero like you do. Now you know.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars:   Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations.   How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?
> ...


Too fucking stupid to get the concept.....aren't you dummy.   It doesn't matter what I believe.  And if any part of your argument was based on what I believe, then you never had much of an argument.  You are amazingly dull.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Constructive Douchebag is too afraid to say that he believes in invisible superheroes.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Professor Dumbshit weighs in with more deep insights.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


But you didn't deny believing in invisible superheroes. Good for you. Fool.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I agree it doesn't matter what you believe. 

Dull? Pot meet kettle


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I wonder if any of you fucking dummies can explain why what you or I believe matters at all in making your argument.   Evidently your dim witted ideas don't stand on their own.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And at least I am open and honest enough to admit technically you are right. No one has ever met God so no one knows. And no one knows if anyone has ever met God. Maybe con douche has met God. But if you ask me if I believe con douche met God the answer is no. I'm not agnostic about that. Are you?

You better say yes because you can't know for sure, right?

Anything you can't falseafy or disprove you are agnostic about. Like my invisible dragon. You are on the fence on her right?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


What a fucking child you are.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


If you would answer our questions we would answer yours. Didn't you watch your own video you posted?

And why don't you cut to the chase and explain why what you believe doesn't matter. You keep repeating that. Why don't you explain you fucking idiot?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


If I was maybe I would believe your stories.

How Adam and Eve pissed off God, then soddom and gamora and Noah then Mary and don't forget moses. 

Since I wasn't there I'll say I'm agnostic about talking snakes and living in a whales belly for 3 days.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Since you are so obviously unfamiliar with how valid arguments are made........why do you even bother posting?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

I guess the only good thing I can say for atheism at this point is that none of the pop culture atheists posting here are very good at understanding atheism....or anything else for that matter.  I would have anticipated debating some intelligent atheists on this forum.  I look forward to hearing from them.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I guess the only good thing I can say for atheism is that none of the pop culture atheists posting here are very good at understanding atheism....or anything else for that matter.  I would have anticipated debating some intelligent atheists on this forum.  I look forward to hearing from them.


You are the 2nd worst poster on usmb. I blocked the first.

What makes you so bad? No give. In a give and take you just take. When so many people are telling you that you are the problem, it's not us who are the problem here. We don't have this problem with any other theists, just you.

So maybe you are even smarter than your fellow theists because they don't communicate like you do and I don't see anyone hitting the agree like or winner buttons on your posts.

You aren't so bad I would block you but you do really suck at this.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Ok I'll bite. Why doesn't what you or I believe matter? Tell us then maybe we can move forward


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the only good thing I can say for atheism is that none of the pop culture atheists posting here are very good at understanding atheism....or anything else for that matter.  I would have anticipated debating some intelligent atheists on this forum.  I look forward to hearing from them.
> ...


Give and take?  What the fuck are you talking about?  Are we in a relationship?  Are you my girlfriend now?  Try making an argument based on it's own merits for a change.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You need help, lots and lots of help.
The Principles of Argumentation


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Am I getting punked by the forum administrators right now?   Did they tell all the intelligent atheists to avoid this thread?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


So you won't answer any of my questions. I won't block you yet I will just try to ignore you but I'm close to blocking you.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Please don't do me any favors.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 5, 2017)

We have more than Ten moral Commandments for free.

That Only happens in Nexus 6 with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, no proof either way for or against a god, which is the only true position out there. You're the one whose arguments for a creator doesn't stand period.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Once again dummy, I haven't made any argument for any kind of creator.  That's all on you dummies.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I can only say yes if con douche has proof of meeting god, until then, he hasn't.
As for your dragon, if you're bringing him in to this discussion and saying that the creator is in a dragon form, I'd have to say "could be", because no one knows for sure. But then again, you already admitted that your dragon is invisible, so that points to you being drunk, which is much more likely.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> I guess the only good thing I can say for atheism at this point is that none of the pop culture atheists posting here are very good at understanding atheism....or anything else for that matter.  I would have anticipated debating some intelligent atheists on this forum.  I look forward to hearing from them.


Says the doucher who believes in an invisible superhero.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the only good thing I can say for atheism at this point is that none of the pop culture atheists posting here are very good at understanding atheism....or anything else for that matter.  I would have anticipated debating some intelligent atheists on this forum.  I look forward to hearing from them.
> ...


Looks like I'll have to go to the trouble of making an ignore list.  You're first dummy.  Congratulations.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> [
> Looks like I'll have to go to the trouble of making an ignore list.  You're first dummy.  Congratulations.


Can't take the heat either.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Um...I believe the "Do you believe in alien abductions? " was a rhetorical question,  that was not actually looking for an answer,  because it is already known that the vast majority of rational people will answer,  "No, " to that question. 

But,  I'm sure that being so much more brilliant than us poor stupid atheists,  you already knew that. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 5, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars:   Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations.   How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> Many people claim to have experienced God





Constructive Anarchy said:


> How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?




what a juvenile combination of selfdefacing contradictions ... since the 4th century.


----------



## Right Smarts (Jan 5, 2017)

I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.

The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.
_*The Principles of Argumentation*_


who's your audience .... written scriptures._* 

*_


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You don't think that aliens are real?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I love having this conversation. Can't help it. It's just like politics and race the other two things you can't really talk about publicly, or shouldn't. 

Im glad to see there are other like minded people who confirm my feelings.

I love exposing the nonsense. I think religion is holding us back and the evidence is UGE that the masses aren't that bright. They are bigly stupid hombre.

No real believer would be here for any more than 1 or 3 posts then they would move on. We see them pop in every once in awhile, make their point then move on the moment we challenge them. What do they care if we believe, right? So why does it bother the ones who've been around for 100 pages and not even have a fair discussion? What kind of mentality is that? They must know they are believing based on faith alone and if their going to buy into nonsense they don't want to be teased.

Ultimately they don't want their delusion challenged. Sorry, when you say we are a Christian nation you crossed the line. Should have said secular because that's what we are. Make no mistake about that. I don't care how nice and good you say your cult is I don't want it to be the official cult of my nation. I agree its the best of all the other cults but I don't like any cults even the friendly ones.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I do. They're just too far for us to find or detect. Science says the probability is very high we are not alone. For years religion insisted we were it. Are you agnostic about this too? Science isn't. They say 99.9999% chance we aren't alone.

It's OK to lean one way or the other. Let's see if you are agnostic about this too.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.
> 
> The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.


As far as your religion goes I present the fake stories in your bible as evidence you made God up. As for talking snakes and walking on water you will have to prove those things to us. How do you defend those impossible stories? Are they allegories? Is even the Jesus story an allegory? How about the wild stories in the Mormon or Muslim holy books?

We admit a creator is an unknowable thing. That's why some choose agnostic. I say I'm an agnostic atheist because I lean on the side of disbelief.

But get this straight buddy. As far as your religions Savior???? Im 100% atheist


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I believe we descend from aliens. We were dumb ape-like creatures for millions of years, then about 50,000 years ago or so, we became intelligent. It wasn't by chance or evolution. And we are still being abducted... have encounters... with aliens today.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

But both Atheists and Theists are deluded, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.

So Con Douche, you have no valid arguments either, maybe try taking your own advice.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.
> 
> The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.


Go back 100 years and ask how many people take the stories in the bible literally. Let's say 75% said yes. Today that number is 25% take the bible stories literally. People are waking up that all religions are man made stories.

Paul went into Greece and made up a new religion. He had a few other accomplices who went to other parts of the world and told the same story. Bfd. Not impressed or convinced your story is real


Do you know who else doesn't buy your story? The Jews! And they were there!!! They say be was just a guy. Are they lying?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


This still wouldn't disprove God but it sure would poke holes in religion. 

That would explain the voices guiding moses and Noah. They gave us LSD and fucked with us? They could have easily drugged then knocked up Mary but how did they convince her husband it was God who knocked her up? We're middle Eastern men stupid?

And Joseph Smith and Mohammad were clearly visited by these aliens but that doesn't explain how people bought their stories


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.
> ...


Jews are fucking liars, they lie about being god's chosen people... to wear coke bottle glasses maybe.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


Well they certainly weren't going to admit the guy was right about them being hypocrites so I can see why one cult would be challenged by a new up and coming cult leader and deny he was right. 

Christians were smart. You didn't have to be circumcized to join just get dunked and pledge allegiance


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 5, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.
> 
> The day my worldview becomes so weak I can't defend it is the day I abandon it. Not so the atheist. He prides himself in his ignorance.


You're quite right. Absolute atheism *is* intellectually bankrupt - *as is absolute theism*.
After all,  there is no more evidence to support absolute theism,  than there is absolute atheism,  now is there. 

That is rather the point of *rational atheism* - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position,  until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Once again, thank you for all your helpful advice.   If more people could be as honest and intelligent as you are the world would be a better place.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Remember not to drink and post.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.
> ...


They think their history is factual. They used to take Noah and David and Goliath and talking snakes literally but most of them now understand all those to be allegories. 

But they don't take the logical leap that so too are the Jesus stories. No no those are real.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


For once you said something that was true.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No doubt some intelligent atheists will show themselves any time now.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You shouldn't post while angry either, just thought you'd like to know.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 5, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> No doubt some intelligent atheists will show themselves any time now.


So you can block them as well?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 5, 2017)

Mudda said:


> But both Atheists and Theists are deluded, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.
> 
> So Con Douche, you have no valid arguments either, maybe try taking your own advice.


.


Mudda said:


> as there's no proof either way for or against a god.




by inference what would be the purity of either Good or Evil as a being, lower case ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 5, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > But both Atheists and Theists are deluded, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.
> ...


Huh?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 5, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


.
from antiquity there is a distinction between good and evil, were any living being able to become pure in either would they enter a new dimension and to some degree become a god as antiquity implies.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 6, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Your most eloquent response.  By far.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What would be the purity of either good or evil as a being? Please answer the guys question and you better do it eloquently


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 6, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.
> ...


Oh I get it now.  It's all those Absolute atheists who sound like complete fucking idiots all the time.  Good thing you can make such a clear distinction between them and you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


Why does it bother you that when you die that's it? Life is a dead end. Better to realize that and cherish every moment. The truth is so much better than fiction. I feel so lucky to have been born. Amazing. But what happens after I die just doesn't bother me. I assume it will be just like it was before I was born.

So yes, atheism is a dead end. Your fairytale is not a dead end. Its a way to tell yourself you are a god. Of course you are. After all you're telling me you are going to live forever!

You're so smart. Lol gullible


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 6, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Feel free to substantiate your theory of the non existence of nothing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


What's it feel like being a god? Pretty amazing that after you die you go to another rhelm of paradise for all eternity. You believe you are a God? How amazingly stupid of you. Naive, gullible, wishful thinking, cognitive dissonance. There's 1000 reasons why you're a joke.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You're too smart for the room


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 6, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You are evidently just a little too stupid to understand that arguing atheism's intellectual dead end is a completely separate argument.   Nothing to do with theism or any other belief system.   It's your own incredible dull stupidity that prevents you from making actual arguments.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Oh it's a dead end for sure. So what? I'm not waiting for an afterlife, wasting 10% of my income, sleep in on Sundays and I don't worry when I masterbate. I'm appreciating now because I know a dead end is coming.

Funny it doesn't make me want to commit evil.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Because no one knows what you are saying. What are you saying? You keep suggesting its obvious but it's not. Not to anyone. Let one person who agrees with you speak up and explain you. I don't believe that person exists


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 6, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> Because no one knows what you are saying. What are you saying? You keep suggesting its obvious but it's not. Not to anyone. Let one person who agrees with you speak up and explain you. I don't believe that person exists





Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?




they imply rationalizing whether for or against would in some way be different than their experience of simply knowing. (the answer for them is hardwired)
_*

Are they spiritually dumb ...

*_
the spider definitely has it in for atheists, they may just be a sock after someone that stepped on them or a likely sociopath (religious) zealot. playing 20 questions.

the OP is actually less noxious than their reply's.

taking pity, atheist must have spirits without knowing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 6, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


I find this interesting maybe you can explain. They say the bible was written around 1600 years ago. The old testament was written supposedly 7000 years ago. Now we know the ancients found fossels and told stories of dragons monsters and other mythical beasts but it wasn't until 1824 that we knew dinosaurs once roamed and how they got here and disappeared. None of that is in the old testament. God left that part out of the 7 day creation story.

I call bullshit!


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 7, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm glad you find it interesting.  And no, I can't explain.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 7, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm sorry that you're not smart enough to understand how arguments are constructed.


----------



## RWS (Jan 7, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?



To answer the first question, yes.

To answer the second question, no. 

To answer the third, no.

Why do you think yourself superior to me, just because you believe in magic?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 7, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


It's because I'm not a God like you. People who die and go to heaven and live forever in paradise understand what you are saying. 

So there must be a connection. You have to be a God to understand you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 7, 2017)

RWS said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


You'd have to be a God who after they die becomes a God and goes to a magical realm where your every desire it met to understand.

Now you understand why they feel superior. They're gods we arent


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

This thread is an intellectual dead end.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 7, 2017)

Mudda said:


> This thread is an intellectual dead end.


You would have to be a God to get this thread.

Don't you think it's funny Christians believe they turn into Gods after they die?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.




Well, if christians continue to insist that God became a man, rational people are bound to respond with disbelief.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.
> ...


Sure they can but that doesn't describe atheism, it describes agnoticism. In order to maintain their particular beliefs atheists lie about it and claim science backs them up.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.
> ...


So what's your particular brand of delusion. You a ki-ke?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> I'd like to thank all the participants for proving what I said all along, atheism is nothing but an anti-Christian reactionary faith.


ya, everyone is out to get you.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




The way I look at it if scripture claims that a biologically dead person came back to life after 4 days,  because his friend told him to, and science shows that such a thing is biologically impossible I conclude that either the story isn't meant to be taken literally and is about something else not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used or it is just religious fiction.


Science does back up atheism, and only a rational mind can discern the hidden teaching of any fable...


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Science doesnt back up atheism, as there is no scientific proof that a god is not possible.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Mudda said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




There is scientific proof that there is no such thing as a god made man made matzo made by human hands.

If you don't believe me we can dissect the eucharist in a laboratory next high holy day and see once and for all if there is any life in it at all...


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Mudda said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




I am keystone in the Yahad of God, the habitation of light.


....or you can look at it as if I am just an ordinary guy, not much different than you,  who got fed up with all of the sanctimonious religious bullshit streaming from priests and politicians alike and picked up the bible one day to see for myself if they were all as full of shit as I suspected they were when I was in the second grade...,.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


There's no scientific proof the universe can simply pop into existence either. So like I said, one faith vs. another and this thread proves it, once again. Atheism is simply an anti-Christian movement with no intellectual high ground to stand on. It's funny to hear them mince words and toss them in a blender to try to hide the fact.

And before you hyper extend yourself and sprain something, I am not religious.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...




I am not religious either nor am I an atheist or agnostic.

The fact remains that atheism is not an anti christian movement anymore than Judaism is.

Scientific discoveries soundly refute any claim that the bible is a literal historical document. The universe did not poof into existence 6000 years ago. That is the truth.

How can anyone honest possibly deny that?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


See? You trotted out the bible again. Thanks!


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




What is Christianity without the fantastical stories in the Bible that contradict  scientific discoveries and well known facts.?

It is not a faith or a belief that human beings did not appear a few thousand years ago.


I'm sure that many people viewed Jesus as an atheist, someone who didn't believe in any god who gave a shit about what you eat or what you wear..


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


See? You trotted out the bible again. Thanks!


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




you're welcome!

I am very happy to use the Bible as a basis for contention with those who use the Bible to base their false claim to moral authority on


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Science only backs up agnosticism, not atheism. You fail. Again.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You sound confused, very unlike me.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Mudda said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Science backs up disbelief in any image of a God created by a stupid literal interpretation of fantastical stories written by primitive men to teach their children about the harsh realities of life surrounded by superstitious and irrational barbarians who acted more like wild beasts or farm animals than human beings.....


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Mudda said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


 

Well yes,  maybe then you can clear something up for me....


How the hell does a grown adult in this day and age have the audacity to profess the belief that God diddled a virgin to become a man?

How can they possibly live with themselves and keep a straight face without going mad?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Where does it say God had sex with Mary? For someone claiming to be scientific you spend a lot of time with conjecture.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


  It says she gave birth to Jesus without having  sex with a human male..

It is impossible for a female egg with only 23 chromosomes to conceive and become a human being without the other 23 chromosomes required from a human father.....


Impossible.


The story either conceals a hidden teaching and was never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people or it is complete bullshit.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


In other words you made that up. The bible doesn't say god had sex with her.

Nor does anything you've said demonstrate that god isn't real. It's a belief and criticizing the bible backs up my assertion that atheism is an anti-Christian movement. You keep proving it!


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I didn't say that God had sex with her. I said he diddled a virgin, made her pregnant without a human father by magic, the holy spirit came upon her or some such shit..

and I didn't say that God isn't real. I am a believer.

What is not real is the false image of God created by a literal interpretation of stories that were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people.


Can't you see the distinction?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of the non existence of nothing.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Most people would interpret diddling a virgin as having sex with her so your language is unique but you can't see that you keep proving my point over and over again. I don't even believe in the bible yet here you are attacking it to prove the nonexistence of god.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


But science doesn't prove that a god isn't possible. You just failed again.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I never claimed that, you made that up.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 7, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I can hardly wait for science to prove the theory of your invisible superhero.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...




You are mistaken. I am not trying to prove the non existence of God, neither am I attacking the Bible.

I am pointing out the obvious whether you believe or don't believe in the bible, that it was never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people and any image of God conjured by a literal interpretation of scripture is a false image that does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence..

There is a difference you know.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Mudda said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...




I never said that you believe that. I asked you to tell me how such people who do profess such ridiculous beliefs keep a straight face without going mad.


Pay attention!

I guess you are more confused than you think........


Nevermind.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 7, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...




When science begins to examine what causes otherwise intelligent people to profess irrational beliefs and then  degenerate into irrational creatures after reading a bronze age fairy tale many will have no choice but to believe...


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 7, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Your assumption is a perfect example of your own premise.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 7, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?




how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ... 

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 7, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Is English your first language?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 7, 2017)

.
in your case for an informed answer what would be the difference between religion and science ...

your query is a Red herring when the religionist is satisfied with the ambiguity which already exists as the means to support their belief ... with the caveat a burning bush will in time give them further information if they behave themselves.


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> in your case for an informed answer what would be the difference between religion and science ...
> 
> your query is a Red herring when the religionist is satisfied with the ambiguity which already exists as the means to support their belief ... with the caveat a burning bush will in time give them further information if they behave themselves.


I knew you were really an atheist.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 7, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.
my belief 4th century christianity is an agenda disguised as a religion is no secret as history attests and work to replace the desert religions with the true religion of the Almighty, the Triumph of Good vs Evil to take its rightful place - for that religion as prescribed is for all humanity to survive or fail (together), does not make me an atheist - - for the last time.


----------



## ding (Jan 7, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


It does if your "true" religion is humanism.


----------



## Right Smarts (Jan 8, 2017)

I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).

First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.

Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.

Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement. What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.

I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.


----------



## Crick (Jan 8, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> 
> First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.



It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural.  And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.



Right Smarts said:


> Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.



Save that belief in the supernatural requires accepting the occurrence of that which all our other experience tells us is impossible.



Right Smarts said:


> Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.



It is normally presented as a supposition: "I do not believe any gods exist". Or, more lexicologically, "I do not believe", or "I reject", "theism".



Right Smarts said:


> Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.



You claim your god always existed.  We claim the universe always existed.



Right Smarts said:


> Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement.



Yet you find such stimulation in 2,000 year old fantasy stories?



Right Smarts said:


> What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.



You started this diatribe with the nonsensical contention that an acceptance of your god was a rational conclusion.  That doesn't really speak all that well for your judgement.  Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?



Right Smarts said:


> I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.



That's awfully nice of you.  I consider a belief in god(s) to be a delusion stemming from a failure to very justifiably question authority.



*** - RATIONALISM:
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2.
Philosophy.

the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
(in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.
3.
Theology. the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
******************************************************************************
and, as long as we're hanging out in the dictionary:

*theism*
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)
******************************************************************************

where I see no use of anything resembling "likely".  As in "Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists"_.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 8, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> 
> First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.
> 
> ...


So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 8, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> ...


Agnostic theism? So you're not sure if you believe in god?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 8, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> 
> First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.
> 
> ...


We don't know. Us admitting we don't know doesn't give God any credibility. The truth is we don't know.

Think about what you're claiming to believe. You believe you are a God. Not yet but after you die your soul lives on in paradise for all eternity. is this what you believe or are you arguing a generic creator that never visited?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 8, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


I'm using right smarts logic against him.

Theism is belief in God but now he's claiming they don't admit knowing.

I'm confused. 

OK, so a theist is someone who doesn't know but believes, right? An agnostic is someone doesn't believe either way. What do you call someone who doesn't know but doesn't believe? That's me


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 8, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> 
> First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.
> 
> ...


Based on your arguments which are all fatally flawed of course you don't find us stimulating. That's the problem with theists they can't imagine any other way. That's your problem. It's why religion holds us back. It presumes to know. Willful ignorance.


----------



## Crick (Jan 8, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Agnosticism is based on the belief that we _cannot_ know either way.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I asked what do you call a guy who admits we can not know either way but doubts there is a God.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 8, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


How can you make the determination not to believe in something you have no clue about? It's not logical.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Because it is not provable to say that we cannot know, I take it a step further and say that I'll keep an open mind in case anyone ever comes up with proof either way. Can't be any fairer than that.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 8, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Sealyboob.


----------



## Crick (Jan 8, 2017)

Mudda said:


> [
> How can you make the determination not to believe in something you have no clue about? It's not logical.



You think its logical to believe in everything about which you haven't a clue?  Really?


----------



## badger2 (Jan 8, 2017)

#992 asks the question of negative theology, except that the question is a stolen one. Oz never gave a thing to the Tin Man that he didn't always already have.

Elementarnye eticheskie zhest iavliaetsia otritsatel'nym, odni iz blokirovaniia priamogo ugla naklona.
The elementary ethical gesture is a negative one, the one of blocking one's direct inclination.

Etot besplatnyi zakon kardinal'no meniaet koordinat y vsei situatsii kotoraia lomaet zakrytie vozmozhnosti Budushchego/Proshloe.
This free act fundamentally changes the coordinates of the entire situation and breaks the closure of Future/Past possibility.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 8, 2017)

Crick said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Like what?


----------



## Right Smarts (Jan 8, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> So you believe agnostic theism is the most logical? I think agnostic atheism makes the most sense.



I believe theism is the most rational conclusion, yes. The agnostic prefix is redundant; it in no way alters the meaning of theism.


----------



## Right Smarts (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Crick, 

Most of your post was a redundant rant on the supernatural, so I've trimmed it down.



Crick said:


> It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural.  And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.



Sorry, Crick, but I reject your supernatural wordplay. For those unaware, the game goes like this:


Define natural as anything which exists.
Define supernatural as anything which is not natural.
Classify God as supernatural.
Use this classification as an argument against God's existence.

Those of you who are adept at logical thinking will realize that this "argument" is circular nonsense, which in no way has any bearing on whether or not God exists.

So, how do you deal with atheists who play this game? Well, for one, you point it out. Once you've done that, you deliver a single line:

_If anything which exists is natural, and God exists, then God is natural._

They have no comeback for this. In other words: *Game Over
*



Crick said:


> Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?



Atheism undermines the credibility of the human mind by claiming it to be merely chemical reactions which have been optimized for survival, but not necessarily discovering truth. In turn, this undercuts everything which relies on said human mind. You know, things like rational thought, science, philosophy, etc.

Atheism is the single worst heuristics possible for science. Theism is the best. It's no surprise, then, that nearly all of science was the fruit of theists. It makes sense that if existence is the product of a cosmic engineer, it would be capable of being reverse engineered. And it is.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 8, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> 
> First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.


No, the rational worldview is the one that science defaults to  - the null condition.  The null condition does not assert esxistence of anything without objective evidence.  To assert that it is *more likely* that God exists than not, one would need to demonstrate the objective evidence to makes that likelihood more probable.



Right Smarts said:


> Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.


Even were your statement true - which it is not - then this contradicts your first contention, which is that theism is the most rational position.



Right Smarts said:


> Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.


You are clearly not familiar with what a "positive claim" is.  You are engaing in the logical fallacy  argumentum ad ignorantium.  In other words, you are shifting the burden of proof to those who deny a positive claim.  "Thing 'A' exists" is the *positive claim*.  Those who refute that, and say, "Until such time as evidence is presente, object 'A' does not exist" is a refutaion of the positive claim, and, therefore, is not, itself, a positive claim.  Sorry pal.  The burden of proof has always, does, and will always fall on the claimants who insist that God exists.



Right Smarts said:


> Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.


Why?  This argument presumes facts not in evidence - specifically that existence *must* have a purpose.  What evidence do you have to support this claim?


----------



## RWS (Jan 9, 2017)

Christians claim that the universe is 6000 years old.

Logic says no. And science backs that up in every way. Yet they continue to believe that based on false science provided by lunatic websites run by fanatics that simply cannot let it go, and cannot accept reality.

The fact that we can see the amount of stars visible to us, plus all the galaxies, of which almost all are over 6000 light years away (and some millions and billions of light years away), means that the universe has to be over 6000 years old.

There's simply no way around that, except for pure ignorance and denial.

The fanatics will say that God created it that way to fool us.

Why does God need to fool us?

Why not accept reality as an alternative to magic?


----------



## RWS (Jan 9, 2017)

Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).

 A book that was plagiarized from far more ancient Mesopotamian texts, and each of these religions claim that their version was an original writing straight from the mouth of God!

And they all want to kill each other over it, because each one thinks they're better than everyone else, and people who think differently should not be allowed...

OMG, what a farce!!!

What lunacy!!!

You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.

And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!

You're all a big part of the problem in this world, due to your ignorance and fanatical beliefs.

You religious fanatics are honestly... disgusting... to me in your words and actions.

Open your minds, and realize that you can have your faith that makes you feel good, while still accepting the reality that you should work with others to reach a mutual benefit for humanity and the world. Not hate and/or kill each other based on a possible lie you were born into...

There's still hope for you. Read things, and try stepping outside the box. While keeping your faiths, explore what's important for this world.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 9, 2017)

RWS said:


> What lunacy!!!
> 
> You would think that after so much time that rational thinking would take over and we could all live peacefully. But apparently, we can't. Because you all want to kill each other over your imaginary gods and made-up books.
> 
> And the reason that you think so, is that you were brainwashed from birth. None of you has studied the world and its history and science, and then came to the conclusion that Judaism or Christianity or Islam was the only way to go, and then chose to believe in that religion as the superior one. You just believe it because you were born into it, brainwashed from birth, and that is all you will ever accept or consider!!!



To crap in their pants in public would be the worst thing that could ever happen to a person who prides themselves on being toilet trained.

If a person is brainwashed since birth to accept irrational beliefs and trained to reject every rational thought that questions or denies that belief as pure evil they are effectively trapped in their own mind and held hostage to a lie in an endless loop of a thought disorder that effectively renders the rational potential of their mind useless.

A person who cannot think rationally cannot follow logic or accept rational conclusions that contradict the faith that they were taught to believe is the highest ideal.

They are not being stubborn, they are not being stupid, they are not being dishonest, they are truly sick.

Thats why it was considered a miraculous sign from God by some and threat to world order by others that amounted to the dead being brought back  to life when cult members being held hostage to the lies of fundamentalist religious lunatics were freed from captivity and restored to a rational and sober mind after having one brief conversation with Jesus...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 9, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> ...


Can't wait for his reply


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 9, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


Are we really still waiting?  I think you freaked him the fuck out with those questions.  I think cognitive dissonance is kicking in and he's trying to think of a way to answer you that won't sound like he believes in magical sky fairies.

It comes down to this.  Do you believe god poofed full grown animals onto land or do you believe in evolution.  If the person believes god poofed, our serious discussion is over.  Anyways, still waiting for this guy to reply.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 9, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I can't wait to see the logical gymnastics he intends to twist himself into in order to turn a negative refutation of a claim into a positive claim requiring evidence to support.

See,  that's the problem I have with that cat who keeps saying "There is no evidence that God is not possible" so you can't say there is no God. He is missing the principle of presumed null condition.  A condition is *presumed* to not exist,  until evidence is presented that it does. Thus,  I am not required to "show evidence" that God "is not possible"; God is *presumed* to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 9, 2017)

.


Czernobog said:


> God is *presumed* to not exist until such time as objective evidence indicates that God does.




 the above does not work as saying they do not exist does indicate their existence and also without an explanation for what does exist anything is possible without presumption.


.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 9, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're talking about Mudda.  Agnostics are pussies who refuse to take the logical next step mentally.  I bet deep down he doesn't want to offend god just in case god exists.  I figure if god exists it's not the one theists talk about so I'm ok denying god.  If there is a god he certainly doesn't care if I believe and didn't make himself known.  Not in my lifetime.  

Did you hear we just found a 9th planet in our solar system.  We know so very little about who we are and where we came from I find it laughable that people believe ancient religions.  

And then on top of it they claim to be gods themselves.  They really believe their spirits never die.  So they aren't just telling you they believe in god.  They're telling you when they die they become gods themselves.  Live in paradise for eternity.  Sounds like a god to me.  

The Hunt for Planet Nine


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 9, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> ...


You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real.  You have to know that logic, in no way, works like that, right?  You want to try to shift the burden of proof to the refutation of the positive claim.  It doesn't work like that.  The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists.  Period.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 9, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent).
> ...



He did admit theists aren't absolutely certain.

Can you believe he starts his crazy argument that God is more likely real. You can't do that! 

Then he says, "given the current data. What data? Can we see it?

Then he says its the most rational worldview to adhere to. What does that mean? Sounds like he's going with the group think. But interesting how he put that. He sounds like an apologist.

I also find it odd they insist that atheism means certain no God exists. See this is technically true but then if there's no atheist then there's no theist. Then we are all on the agnostic spectrum. Us agnostic atheists and them agnostic theists, will they agree to this?

And this guy doesn't sound like he believes the bible stories. Maybe we should find out what God he's talking about because generic creator doesn't care we are having this conversation. The only people who care are people who think they themselves are gods. They're going to live forever in paradise. Never get sick never unhappy. Isn't that a God?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 9, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> ...


Sure anything is possible. What other things besides God do you accept without real evidence?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 9, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


Czernobog said:


> You are arguing that because a word has been invented to define a fantasy, that that is, itself, evidence that the fantasy is real.



matters existence is not fantastical and its unknown origin makes all things possible. the perception you seem to be lacking.




Czernobog said:


> The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of those who claim that God exists. Period.



the reason for an Almighty exists, the Triumph of Good vs Evil makes the likelihood plausible against the forces described and known, nothing to do with creation or 4th century superstition. the burden would be to disclaim purity and its pinnacle moment of Singularity.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What "Triumph of Good vs Evil"?  I don't know what universe you live in, but I certainly don't see a whole lot of "Good triumphing over Evil"...

Hell, for that matter, Good and Evil are subjective terms that have nothing to do with an objective argument in favour of the existence of divinity.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.


Czernobog said:


> but I certainly don't see a whole lot of "Good triumphing over Evil"...



I agree, it should not matter but for one the 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion, christianity has derailed the focus for humanities survival as an example.




Czernobog said:


> Hell, for that matter, Good and Evil are subjective terms that have nothing to do with an objective argument in favour of the existence of divinity.



_*are subjective terms ...*_

they haven't an equation but are no less in existence than gravity ... without one there is the purity of the other an accomplishment similar to the moment of Singularity at its Triumph. 

The presumption would be you would rather the gnome for our species not be manipulated by Adolf Hitler as the reason for the religion of who's Spirits are set free in the Everlasting.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> _*are subjective terms ...*_
> 
> they haven't an equation but are no less in existence than gravity ... without one there is the purity of the other an accomplishment similar to the moment of Singularity at its Triumph


Which is what subjective means.



BreezeWood said:


> The presumption would be you would rather the gnome for our species not be manipulated by Adolf Hitler as the reason for the religion of who's Spirits are set free in the Everlasting.


I...don't even know what that word salad is supposed to mean...


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

.


Czernobog said:


> I...don't even know what that word salad is supposed to mean...



is English your native language ....

_*
In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.*_


are you personally responsible for your genome.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 10, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


To other animals humans are ruining the pl


Czernobog said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


We are destroying this planet. If we wiped ourselves out with nukes it's very possible dolphins might view those bombs as sent from god to wipe out us evil humans and save the good dolphins and their cousins the whales and sharks.

Now those sharks are the devil fish. Pure evil. Indolphin


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> ...


No.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars:   Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations.   How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?
> ...


It does go to the core.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> We are destroying this planet. If we wiped ourselves out with nukes it's very possible dolphins might view those bombs as sent from god to wipe out us evil humans and save the good dolphins and their cousins the whales and sharks.
> 
> Now those sharks are the devil fish. Pure evil. Indolphin



The planet will be just fine.  There's ton of scientific evidence for that.  You don't need to be agnostic on the fate of the planet.  All hail science.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Yes, God is taken on faith, but so is not believing in God.  Not believing in God is taken on faith too.  Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it.  I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> We have more than Ten moral Commandments for free.
> 
> That Only happens in Nexus 6 with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.


We shouldn't need any.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I was afraid that you wen't going to be able to sneak in a 4th century reference, but bam, you did it.  You got it right in at the wire.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I love having these kind of conversations too.  What nonsense have you exposed?


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen no evidence of atheism being the one valid worldview. Even worse, when I challenge atheists to present evidence, they retreat into agnosticism, which they've relabeled as "weak atheism." This is an implicit admission that atheism -- real atheism, not relabeled agnosticism -- is intellectually bankrupt.
> ...


You don't know that.  The reality is that the farther people are away from an event the less knowledgeable they are on almost all aspects of that event.  We would be less likely to understand it than they would.  You don't know what they believed.  You must be agnostic on what they actually believed.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> ...


Yeah...in your oriinal post you didn't say genome; you said gnome: "The presumption would be you would rather the *gnome*..."

Understandably I didn't understand what you were trying to say.  I'm also not sure what you meant by this bit of doggeral: "...not be manipulated by Adolf Hitler as the reason for the religion of who's Spirits are set free in the Everlasting."


----------



## mamooth (Jan 10, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Here's a question for pop culture atheist scholars:   Many people claim to have experienced God in a spiritual sense, while other claim to have experienced God through real physical manifestations.   How do atheists know whether or not these people are experiencing something that atheists are simply incapable of perceiving?



When I was religious, I would have sworn I was getting warm fuzzy God feelings, "experiencing God in a spiritual sense".

And now, being that I'm more mature, I can reproduce such warm fuzzy feelings at will, with a bit of reflection, no God required. If I focus on my altruistic love of Mickey Mouse, I can feel the spiritual power of Mickey flowing back at me. It's just an interesting mental phenomenon.

So, I know from personal experience.that the God-feelings are self-generated, and require no actual god, and that it's a form of self-delusion and narcissism to assign them to your supposed personal hotline to the ruler of the universe.

And I hope nobody tries a "Then those weren't really god-feelings!" defense, as that's a sort of "no true scotsman" fallacy.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


Again, you don't know that.  You must be agnostic about that.  The reality is that nearly every culture has a tradition of a global flood.  There's probably something to it.  As for Biblical implications, read the allegorical books allegorically, read the poetic books poetically, read the wisdom books wisely, read the prophetic books prophetically, read the apocalyptic books apocalyptically, read the books of law legally and read the historical books historically, but in the proper context of that day.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You worry about too many things.  They are all expressions of faith.  Before you can criticize any one faith, you would have had to first had faith in something and then test it out.  You have done neither and are in no position to criticizes one's practice of their faith.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


You like to limit your associations to white people, don't you?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> Yes, God is taken on faith, but so is not believing in God.  Not believing in God is taken on faith too.



By that standard, not believing in Santa Claus is an act of faith. And as that's senseless, it shows why your "not believing in God requires faith" statement is just as senseless.



> Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it.  I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.



You're equating two different meanings of the word "faith:

"Faith" -- belief without evidence. Religious faith. Theists have that type.

"Faith" -- belief with evidence. Faith that the sun with rise tomorrow. Atheists have that type.

Those two types of faith rely on completely different definitions, so declaring them to be the same is an equivocation fallacy, and thus invalid.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Evil is the absence of good.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It doesn't.  I don't think I am.  I don't think you are either.  The only question will be whether we are separated from God.  It appears from the laws of nature that He does not destroy what He has created.  How can He?  It was good.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Right.  It just makes you more apt to have relative morals.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He is saying that...  arguing atheism's intellectual dead end is a completely separate argument. It has nothing to do with theism or any other belief system.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Before you can understand any particular faith you would first have had to had faith in God and then have faith in a faith.  You have done neither.  You shouldn't be expected to understand.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  You have to read what he wrote to understand him.  Arguing atheism's intellectual dead end is a completely separate argument. Nothing to do with theism or any other belief system.  What part of that did you not understand?


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


It is called faith and it exists for good reason.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.  The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

Right Smarts said:


> I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent). First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.





Crick said:


> It is not rational, by definition,* to assume the supernatural.  And under any interpretation of "current data" the Christian god is no more likely to exist than a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt.



That's not a material point.  Three headed unicorn with laser coming out of its butt theology is nonexistent.  To argue the premise that Judea/Christianity or any other major religion is flawed because something else is flawed is idiotic.



Right Smarts said:


> Second, in the absence of superior evidence either for or against a claim, the reasonable position is neutrality. Thus, the "correct" default position in the question of existence is agnosticism.





Crick said:


> Save that belief in the supernatural requires accepting the occurrence of that which all our other experience tells us is impossible.



All our other experiences don't tell us that it is impossible.  Quite the opposite, they tell us it is.  In fact, I don't see how it can be any other way. 



Right Smarts said:


> Third, the claim that God does not exist--the actual claim of atheists--is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Thus, it requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.





Crick said:


> It is normally presented as a supposition: "I do not believe any gods exist". Or, more lexicologically, "I do not believe", or "I reject", "theism".



Doesn't matter, he's right.  The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.



Right Smarts said:


> Fourth, and final, atheism's denial of the existence of God logically entails that something other than God is at the root of existence. Atheists need to work up the courage to explain what this something is, and present their evidential arguments for why they believe it true.





Crick said:


> You claim your god always existed.  We claim the universe always existed.



It is the only solution to the first cause. 



Right Smarts said:


> Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement.





Crick said:


> Yet you find such stimulation in 2,000 year old fantasy stories?



I find wisdom and knowledge in them. 



Right Smarts said:


> What I've found has been a lot of semantical games and burden of proof dodging, as well as a belief system which, when followed to its logical conclusion, undermines all of rational thought and science.





Crick said:


> You started this diatribe with the nonsensical contention that an acceptance of your god was a rational conclusion.  That doesn't really speak all that well for your judgement.  Could we please have the Reader's Digest explanation as to how atheism undermines all rational thought and science?



He more than covered this in his four points.  His literal rebuttal would be to re-paste his original four points.



Right Smarts said:


> I cannot in good faith consider atheism anything other than either a bankrupt academic trend, or, for the more militant atheists, a severe psychological illness.





Crick said:


> That's awfully nice of you.  I consider a belief in god(s) to be a delusion stemming from a failure to very justifiably question authority.


The claim that God does not exist is a positive claim about the nature of reality and requires positive supporting evidence if it's to be taken seriously.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

RWS said:


> Christians claim that the universe is 6000 years old.
> 
> Logic says no. And science backs that up in every way. Yet they continue to believe that based on false science provided by lunatic websites run by fanatics that simply cannot let it go, and cannot accept reality.
> 
> ...


Newsflash, we read it in the context style of the literary type.  You are making a pre-K argument.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

RWS said:


> Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).
> 
> A book that was plagiarized from far more ancient Mesopotamian texts, and each of these religions claim that their version was an original writing straight from the mouth of God!
> 
> ...


Do you write all of your paragraphs in sentence form?  

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.
_*and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.*_



ding said:


> There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.




including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> Yes, God is taken on faith, but so is not believing in God.  Not believing in God is taken on faith too.





mamooth said:


> By that standard, not believing in Santa Claus is an act of faith. And as that's senseless, it shows why your "not believing in God requires faith" statement is just as senseless.



Comparing belief in a higher power to belief in santa clause is a logical fallacy strawman.  Since the beginning of time man has debated the existence of a higher power.  Don't kid yourself.  The argument about the existence of God is as old as man himself.  Nothing new here.  The persistence of the belief and the common themes of religion in general are evidence in and of themselves that faith in a higher power is more than just a santa clause story.



ding said:


> Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it.  I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.





mamooth said:


> You're equating two different meanings of the word "faith:
> 
> "Faith" -- belief without evidence. Religious faith. Theists have that type.
> 
> ...


No.  I only have one definition.

Faith = complete trust in something

It stands on it own, but we have reason for placing our trust into it.  If you want to call reason, evidence, I'm fine with that.  It doesn't make a difference to me though as I would not place complete trust in something unless I had a good reason to do so.  So, your point is a moot point.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Yep.  That's me... one sick puppy.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.









ding said:


> Yep. That's me... one sick puppy.




 ... the good old times for bing.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.  I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me.  What you intend for evil, He has used for good.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me. What you intend for evil, He has used for good.




_*I have chosen the better portion ...*_


truth is not a choice bing maybe you should take another look ... at whatever you chose from. * or just anything different would be an improvement.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Being objective is a choice and you can't see truth without being objective.  I chose God, I have no idea what you believe I chose.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


. 


ding said:


> Being objective is a choice and you can't see truth without being objective. I chose God, I have no idea what you believe I chose.




another who's native language must be from another country than the USA ...


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No.  I only speak English.  He is still using what you intended as evil for good.  My good.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> No. I only speak English. He is still using what you intended as evil for good. My good.




"good" luck thinking they are watching over you ... and "your good" blessed one.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Thanks.  I absolutely will. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Thanks. I absolutely will. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me.




_*I absolutely will.*_


you absolutely will, what.


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Continue to believe they are watching over me.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 10, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Continue to believe they are watching over me.




that's what you claim, I have no such belief as I said you should be seen by a veterinarian ...


----------



## ding (Jan 10, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I understand that is your opinion.  So what?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Right Smarts said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen quite a few errors which are common amongst atheists, which you seem to be (I say this with no ill intent). First, theism is not a position of absolute certainty. Theism merely states that, given the current data, _it's more likely than not that God exists_. Thus, theism is the most rational worldview to adhere to. How strongly you adhere to it is correlated with how strongly you believe the evidence for it is.
> ...


No it is not.  To claim a thing exists is a positive claim that requires evidence to support it.  To *refute* that t thing exists is just that - the refutation of the positive claim.  You are trying to turn logical debate on its ear to justify belief in a thing that has no objective evidence of its existence. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Good luck with actually thinking anything at all.   Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Don't bother with these idiots.  You'll never get anything from them that even comes anywhere close to being an honest argument.  They are false and stupid in just about equal proportions.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism.   The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs.    And that's it, nothing more.  Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own.   Your so called arguments don't stand independently.   You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Dummies like you shouldn't have opinions about religion or science.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


One would think the "virtues" of atheism would be self-evident: self-determination, self-reliance, a desire to do all that one can to make this world a better place - after all, it is all we get.  You see, us atheists share many of the same moral principles as theists, only for different reasons.  Rather than trying to curry favour with some imaginary cosmic score keeper, we do what we can to make this life as fulfilling as possible, because it is the only one we get.  And, to be clear, "fulfilling": doesn't mean self-gratifying.  Contrary to the misconception of theists, atheists are not mindless hedonists.  No.  You see, we are well aware that there is no "next".  This is it.  The only chances at "immortality" that we have is through our family, and our legacy.  So we have a very good reason to live a healthy, productive life.  It is all that will be left behind when we are gone.  If we live our lives in hedonistic, mindless pleasure, then when we are gone, no one will ever remember us.  Our lives will have been a waste.  But, if we can make something, create something, make a difference in someone's life while we are here.  Well!  Then our name and memory will live on long after we are dust.

We also have more incentive to actually *live by our moral code*.  After all, most theists - particularly monotheists - have this whole elaborate system of "forgiveness" in some "great beyond" that they have convinced themselves exists, so that their lack of living by their own moral codes are given a pass.  We atheists know there are no "do-overs", so we have the incentive to do our best to get it right the first time.


----------



## RWS (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > Christians, Jews, Muslims, they all need to realize that they are not original in their holy books. They were copied from and changed from more ancient texts that spoke about totally different things. Each one of those religions claim that they are superior, and 100% right. Yet, their factual basis is a book(s).
> ...



Do you also have a problem with the way I write? 

So you don't like the way I think, or write? Wow... 

Again, you provided a reflex link that was not properly thought out or researched, that contradicts what you say about your religion. Just stuff you link from a random list when provided with an argument you cannot respond to... This is what, 4 or 5 times so far, just with me??

The Old Testament was written approximately 3500 years ago. So your Babylonian date of 4500 years ago (and they took it from the Sumerians, so it is older still) is still 1000 years older than the biblical texts. And the Enuma Elish 4500 years ago, tells a vastly different story about our "gods" than the OT 3500 years ago, and was changed to suit the monotheist Jewish religion that started 1000 years later. 

The OT was a copy of older texts. Including the Enuma Elish, and others such as Atrahasis and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Written long before the OT. 

The NT is also plagiarism of many older stories:


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Laughable to imagine that atheism has a moral code of any kind.    Atheists are entirely defined by what they don't believe.   There is no affirmative atheistic argument.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Reagan the stupid books stupidly


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I once had faith


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Right Smarts said:
> ...


Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith.  I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed.  But I could be wrong.  Either way it does not change my point.  You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's because it is not your faith.   Of course you will read it stupidly, that's called confirmation bias.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It was at the time. And,

Are you saying you have to believe what you are about to read regardless of what you are about to read in order to get it? Sorry my brain doesn't work that way. If I start reading something and it doesn't move me that's not my fault.

And I think I was throughout brainwashed before I read the bible. Maybe I was starting to have my doubts before I read it but the book didn't win me back. I'm not gullible or easily brainwashed


----------



## hobelim (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.


  There is no such thing as a Judeo/Christian God.

Jews do not believe in an edible triune mangod, only Christians do.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


And this is the point at which we are done.  You asked a question.  I provided an answer,  and you completely ignored it,  and continued your unfounded claims.  You are not interested in discussion.  You want simply to pontificate,  and to be patted on your head for you alleged brilliance. Feel free to enjoy your intellectual masturbation. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


There is *no more* objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God.  The one time you tried, you first required that God be *presumed* to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis.  That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias.   After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The statements of opinion and personal philosophy strung together in post #1064 are far from self evident.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Stick with faith because you can't prove anything.
Faith=Wishful thinking


----------



## Mudda (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No, I hang with people who are tanned as well.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> It is called faith and it exists for good reason.


Because you can't prove anything.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


If you say so.  As far as the thread being "opinion and personal philosophy", guess what?  *Everyone's moral code is opinion and personal opinion*.  The fact that some of those opinions, and philosophies are spoon-fed to people who prefer not to think for themselves doesn't make it any less so.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Spoon fed philosophy?  Do you mean like Socrates and Aristotle?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> Good luck with actually thinking anything at all. Which, as we've witnessed throughout this thread, isn't exactly a strong point for superficial pop culture atheist dimwits like yourself.




daring words from a religious incognito, do the atheist scare you.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe.    Like so many pop culture atheists.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Well, if one bases their entire world view off of Socrates, or Aristotle, rather than using them as tools for learning how to examine life, and discover one's world views for one's then yeah.  More typically, however, it has been my experience that it is theosophists who allow themselves to be spoon-fed their moral, and philosophical views, and then act as if they have some superior understanding that everyone else is missing.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That's funny...


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It is called faith and it exists for good reason.
> ...


Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> The only people who I find frightening are the ones who have blind faith, but have no idea why they believe what they say they believe. Like so many pop culture atheists.




the key word for you is incognito - do you always hide behind a wall while taking potshots ... sniper


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The key words for you are: Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What was you faith again, lol?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Good thing those ideas weren't spoon fed or anything.  No doubt they spontaneously manifested themselves in your mind and just happen to coincide with existing philosophy.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


That presumes that a moral code is dependent on religion.  Following your logic, theists are capable of an ethical, and moral code, solely because they believe in a deity.  You get the bankruptcy of that position, right?  That means that humanity, in your opinion, is incapable of independent, ethical thought.  What a low opinion of human beings you have.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


You need to make up your mind.  Either atheism has no core belief system on which all adherents conform, or theists have a moral, and ethical framework that they are all taught, and to which they all conform.  Which is it?  Morally bankrupt, or morally uniform?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.




by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Your presumption doesn't logically follow.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


How does this response in any way even begin to address the post?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> The key words for you are: Cuckoo For Cocoa Puffs.




I needn't remind you again the answer to what happened the Tuesday before the Singularity was answered, as I already have, is your wall of security to high for you to crawl over it ...


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> What was you faith again, lol?




the spoken religion of the Almighty: the Triumph of Good vs Evil. sorry, nothing from the 4th century.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Wrong. Relativity was *presented as a hypothesis* (and still is only theory,  incidentally), and then *objectively tested* that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory.  You present divinity as a fact,  and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias,  and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...



It's not *my* presumption;  it's yours.  And I agree the presumption *doesn't* logically follow.  Perhaps your position needs more examination. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Because your post implies that my moral position is one that was taught to me, presumably by other atheists.  Yet, your position is that there is no uniform moral code associated with atheism, and it is, therefore "bankrupt" (your word).  Those two positions are incompatible.  Either there is no codified morality attached to atheism, or atheism contains its own moral code that is "taught" to all atheists.  Which is it?   Morally bankrupt, or containing a set of moral teachings with which you just happen to disagree?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But you have incredibly low standards.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


How do you figure that? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## mamooth (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Comparing belief in a higher power to belief in santa clause is a logical fallacy strawman.



As both God and Santa are clearly higher powers, that's clearly just your usual special pleading fallacy.



> No.  I only have one definition.
> 
> Faith = complete trust in something



And other people don't share your bad definitions. Hence, it's senseless for you to declare what others really believe based only on your own bad use of language.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs.




_*... on countering the idea of religious beliefs.

*_
the OP makes no mention of countering the idea of religious beliefs as you now allege, which idea of the religious beliefs are those that are so perplexing to you .... as you claim atheists are -




Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are they spiritually dumb?




the truth of who is Spiritually bankrupt include the 4th century christians that represent a political agenda disguised as a religion for the very purpose to prevent Free Spirits from exercising their God given rights.


what then are your religious beliefs to back up your opening statement based on.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Notice how none of you fucking dummie



We notice how you're the only person here screaming insults at people. Looks like a way to deflect from how badly you're flailing.



> can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism.



Looks like another deflection. What is "virtue"? Define it exactly. Tell us how to measure it in the real world. And do it in a way other than your usual "I automatically define what I do as virtuous". That's getting old.



> The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs.    And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own.



Same thing. Define "intrinsic value", without resorting to your usual "I define myself as perfect" tactic.



> Your so called arguments don't stand independently.   You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.



Of course they do. "Don't believe in things without evidence" does not require that religion exist. You're really bad at the basics here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I don't think we should be required to make an argument for the virtures of atheism.  Maybe it isn't virtuous?  

goodness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, worthiness, purity; 
principles, ethics


Atheism doesn't have to be good.  It's just not believing in god.  

Atheism has nothing to do with my morality.  Neither does god other than maybe when I was a kid I was scared into being nice instead of naughty because some wacked out Christians told me this crazy story how if I believe them then I'll be a god after I die.  

I just don't buy it.  I wanted to but belief isn't something you do because you want to.  I believe the Lions are going to win a Superbowl in my lifetime but that doesn't make it true.

And I have honor, show decency, respect, principles, ethics...all without god


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No. there's way more to it than that. I wouldn't expect a humanist to understand.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

mamooth said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Notice how none of you fucking dummie
> ...


You have evidence.  You just don't accept it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I always had a problem with the story.  Even if it was deep down.  I never believed enough to get sucked in.  I couldn't rationally make sense of the allegories when  people said they were real stories.  

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _– Ken Ham


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You make a whole lot of presumptions based on nothing.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



That's not how it works.  Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists".  Okay.  Now.  How do you test that hypothesis?  And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence".  Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe.  Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists.  Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists.  So?  Go.  Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


Funny.  I was thinking the same about you.  You seem to be talking in circles.  You claim that atheism is an "intellectual dead end" because it has no "value" intrinsic to itself.  I demonstrate the value of atheism, and you simply dismiss the demonstration out of hand, and continue with your presumption.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Your writing is Ok.  Look this is pretty simple, if you don't want to believe in God don't.  I don't have a horse in the game.  I don't get commissions.  If you don't want to accept the reality that the account of Genesis was written as symbols in the Chinese language 4500 years ago or that they describe the great migration of people or that they worshiped the God of Abraham, I'm cool with that too.  It doesn't change the fact that the Bible correctly tells the account of the great migration.  Even if you didn't understand that was what it was doing.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


My presumption?  Which presumption was that?  I can hardly wait for your next clairvoyant prediction.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  I made observations before I made a hypothesis.  You don't think Einstein made any observations?  For starters Einstein observed that it was impossible for Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations to both be right.  I have observed that we live in a self referential universe which most likely did have a beginning.  Both of these conditions are supported by the physical laws of science.  Any problems so far?


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's funny because I believe I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Right and there is quite a bit more evidence to support the God of Judea/Christianity exists than there is a three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt exists.
> ...


There is only one Creator whose nature is beyond our comprehension, however you choose to represent that Supreme Being is ok by me.  You can call Him whatever the fuck you want.   I won't piss on your belief.  I suggest you not piss on mine.  In fact, I would be more than happy for you to tell me about your God.  I hope your love and admiration for Him shines through in what you write.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The Bible nailed the Great Migration

The Bible nailed the great flood

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

The Bible nailed evolution.

The Bible nailed DNA.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.  

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

The Bible nails failed behaviors.

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously?  Your problem is that you don't take it seriously.  You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything.   I don't have a problem with your non-belief.  I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 11, 2017)

It is intellectually a dead end to believe and to make shit up about something that isn't proven over science. Period.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I don't care when it was.  It's not your faith now.  I wouldn't expect you to show it any respect and you just proved that with your idiotic statement.  Personally I believe you have the idiotic belief because I don't see how it could be any other way.  It's not even close.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Matthew said:


> It is intellectually a dead end to believe and to make shit up about something that isn't proven over science. Period.


You mean like love?


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No.  They are just a bit stubborn is all.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God?  Can you do that?  Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Comparing belief in a higher power to belief in santa clause is a logical fallacy strawman. Since the beginning of time man has debated the existence of a higher power. Don't kid yourself. The argument about the existence of God is as old as man himself. Nothing new here. The persistence of the belief and the common themes of religion in general are evidence in and of themselves that faith in a higher power is more than just a santa clause story.





ding said:


> Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it. I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.





mamooth said:


> You're equating two different meanings of the word "faith:
> 
> "Faith" -- belief without evidence. Religious faith. Theists have that type.
> 
> ...





ding said:


> No.  I only have one definition.
> 
> Faith = complete trust in something





mamooth said:


> And other people don't share your bad definitions. Hence, it's senseless for you to declare what others really believe based only on your own bad use of language.



I declare what I believe.  I don't declare anything for anyone else.  You couldn't even direct your replies to the quote you were supposedly rebutting.  So don't tell me about bad use of language.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's called the placebo effect. Now you know.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


That hasn't been my observations.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I've been trying to tell you that you were born with the innate ability to know right from wrong, but you keep arguing that you didn't.  Why do you keep rejecting science.  And while we are on that subject, your comment that "you were scared into being nice,"  that to has a scientific basis too.  Any way they are both totally consistent with the Bible.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes. There is absolutely nothing in the physical laws of the universe - particularly in light of quantum physics - that predicates a begining of the universe.  It is just as likely that there was no begining as it is that there was.  Next?


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?






> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".





I've complied in this thread, the spoken religion of the Almighty it's your turn about your 4th century agenda disguised as a religion you call chritianity.

your "religion" condemns all those that _chose or have not_ read your book while displaying no etchings or physical properties from the time of the events for verification of its veracity and which only exists as an abbreviated document from the 4th century.




ding said:


> The Bible nailed the ...



you and the OP are nothing but stool pigeons made fools of by 4th century charlatans.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.




are you scared to read posts about your 4th century abridged "religion" ... the post invokes the Almighty, you and the OP need be afraid of.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What you intended for evil, He has used for good.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> The Bible nailed the Great Migration


Really?  Please note the portion of the Bible that predicted predicted an event that only happened a hundred years ago.



ding said:


> The Bible nailed the great flood


Except there was no "great flood".  And even if there was - there wasn't - the Biblical "account" was categorically impossible:









ding said:


> The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago


Yeah...I read that blathering thread, the first time you posted the link.  Couple of problems.  First, I notice that no where in your thread did you credit a source for your little slides.  Second, the thrust of your argument is that the Chinese recorded that they "migrated" from "somewhere else".  Except that Homo Sapien fossils have been discovered *in China* that date back to 1.6 *Million* years ago.  That kinda contradicts your "The Chinese migrated to China 4,000 years ago" claim, don't ya think?



ding said:


> The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.


Which is just as likely that the Bible got it wrong, *again*



ding said:


> The Bible nailed evolution.


No it didn't.  *Since* evolution has been proven accurate time after time, there are Biblical apologists who want to try to *reinterpret* Genesis so that it was referring to evolution.  However, that has never been the understanding of the "Origin Story" of the Bible.  And it is still not a universally accepted interpretation, even among Christians.  Just ask Ken Ham.



ding said:


> The Bible nailed DNA.


No it didn't.



ding said:


> The Bible nailed that we came from dust.


Except we didn't, unless you are referring to the fact that, at a subatomic level, we are all made of the same elements as everything, including dirt.  However, that is absolutely *not* the way in which the "Creation of man" story was written.  Now, you can answer that the story was just allegorical, but then that removes your "Man is dust is factually accurate" argument.  Either the Bibilcal account of how man came to be is factual, or it is allegorical.  To try to claim both is just twisting yourself into logical pretzels in order to make excuses for the Bible. 



ding said:


> The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.


Not only is that a matter of opinion, I really rather hope that you are wrong.  Unlike you, obviously, I do *not* believe that man is inherently evil, and incapable of doing good.



ding said:


> The Bible nailed the morality progression.


Opinion.



ding said:


> The Bible nails an internal locus of control.


No it didn't.



ding said:


> The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.


Opinion.



ding said:


> The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.


REALLY?!?!@?  Refresh my memoty?  How long did the Bible claim Adam lived?  Methuselah?  Noah?  Shall I go on?



ding said:


> The Bible nails successful behaviors.


Opinion.  And a bad one at that/  Really?  If you rape a woman, pay her father, and she gets to become your wife is a *successful behaviour*?!?!  Really??? Stoning disobedinet children to death is a *successful behaviour*?  Really???  Either you have a very strange view of "successful behaviour", or you are incorrect. 



ding said:


> The Bible nails failed behaviors


Opinion..


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No.  It doesn't.  You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Do you not know that for every energy to mass transfer and mass to energy transfer that there is a reduction in the usable energy of the system?


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible nailed the Great Migration
> ...


That was entirely predictable.  It seems that you believe you are the judge of the world of evidence and everything, lol.  God help us if you ever become a dictator, lol.  You're like a nazi.  

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously? Your problem is that you don't take it seriously. You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything. I don't have a problem with your non-belief. I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Are you not familiar with gravitons?  Are you not aware that, because they are massless, when they are converted to energy, there is no loss of mass?  Like I said, *quantum physics*.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Do gravitons create energy from nothing?  Look, you are kind of slow on this stuff so let me break it down.  As time approaches infinity the usable energy will approach zero.  There is no getting around this.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, every transfer will have losses to the system.  The universe had to have a beginning.  It is not possible for the universe to be eternal.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are mistaking "massless" for "nothing".  Energy is created by *matter* conversion, not *mass* conversion.  By being massless, gravitons can be converted ad infinitum with no loss of mass.  Also, as particles of quantum matter, because they are massless, they do not *lose mass* as they approach the speed of light.  In other words, your model is incomplete.  This is why trying to use high school physics to explain the universe, and cosmic events will always fall short.  You simply do not have access to all of the relevant data.


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No, I don't believe I am.  Matter is energy and energy is matter.  They are equivalent.  E=MC^2.   They only change form and when they do there is a loss to the system's usable energy.  Why is this so hard for you to accept?  Are you really suggesting that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is invalid?  Do you still see usable energy?  You wouldn't if the universe were infinite.  Are gravitons responsible for recharging the universe?  Gravitons do not apply to this discussion.  

_Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.

All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.

Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.

The entropy of a system is proportional to the logarithm of the probability of that particular configuration of the system occurring. The more highly ordered the configuration of a system, the less likely it is to occur naturally - hence the lower its entropy.

The total energy of the universe is a constant.
The total entropy of the universe always increases.
_


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I see.  You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.








ding said:


> What you intended for evil, He has used for good.




the history of your religion speaks for itself and its followers, the evil is written in your book bing.



.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 11, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Okay.  I'm sure you're smarter than both Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das.  Das has only had a PhD in Physics since 1998, and
Ali has only spent his entire life in theoretical physics, winning multiple awards.  But, hey!  You had high school physics, so what do they know?

You do get that E=MC^2 means Energy equal *MASS *times the speed of light squared, right?  So, when the matter is massless, guess how much energy is lost in the conversion?  0 squared is *zero*.  When gravitons are converted to energy, *zero* energy is lost in the conversion.  Oops.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 11, 2017)

A thinking man's comedian.   Another foreign concept for pop culture atheists.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing belief in a higher power to belief in santa clause is a logical fallacy strawman. Since the beginning of time man has debated the existence of a higher power. Don't kid yourself. The argument about the existence of God is as old as man himself. Nothing new here. The persistence of the belief and the common themes of religion in general are evidence in and of themselves that faith in a higher power is more than just a santa clause story.
> ...


You shouldn't bother having thoughts about your own perceptions when Professor Czerno is lecturing.   I'm sure he'll let you know when you've arrived at the correct conclusions.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So, to be clear, in your opinion, a person's actions will, and should have absolutely zero effect on the actions of others?  It is your contention that one's choices should not have consequences, and, if they do, then the blame for such consequences falls on the person, or persons reacting to the bad behaviour, and not the person who behaved badly?  That is really your position?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So declares the braintrust who mocks anyone who responds to his proclamations with anything other than adoration for his brilliance.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Remember, the only thoughts and perceptions that matter will be articulated for you by Professor Czerno.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Actually, what we are talking about has nothing to do with perceptions.  But, being stupid, I can understand how you would be confused.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm sure you're more than adequate to the task of being his tour guide to the black void of nothingness.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And what in the hell does that have to do with all that mass that is floating out there with usable energy still left?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That was some mental masturbation you did to arrive at a position to justify an external locus of control.  So let me put this down quickly, yep, that's right, your failed behaviors should not cause me to behave poorly.  I am accountable for my behaviors, no one else.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What's your best observation that proves all this to be true to you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why do you complain about liberals? I don't have a problem with your belief. It's your attitude and behavior I have a problem with.

Same thing you said about us athiests only I found something I believe is good but you don't.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How about when he shows himself for real?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievable


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't complain about them.  I examine them. What am I complaining about?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




you don't seem to understand.

Christians believe that God became a man.

 Jews have rejected this assertion ever since it was first unleashed on mankind by Rome in 325.ce.

Am I missing something?


Jesus said that he came from God,  was sent by God to teach,  and owed his very existence to God.

Any being, whether created or begotten,  whose source is God cannot be God who alone is the source of all life.

God has no visible shape or material form, he has no equal, and there is no other god in existence either above or below him.


This precludes the possibility that a human being, even Jesus,  ever was God or became God either before during or after their human existence.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Pretty much. You weren't ready.  But today you believe that you are an expert on it. You're not. Your understanding is superficial at best and skewed by your bias.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yes. You did miss something.  The point of my last post.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




No, I just ignored it because it was and is ridiculous. If you want to remain in fantasyland, I suggest you don't post your fantasies here where they can be scrutinized and challenged by rational people. Go to church. Even here, no one will piss on beliefs if you don't try to make some absurd claim to moral authority on them.

My point remains .

There is no such thing as a judeo/christian God.

The two groups beliefs about God have nothing whatever in common.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It has to do with the fact that mass is not required to convert matter to energy.  With gravitons, matter is converted without any loss of energy, or mass.  There is no begining, there is no end.  Your universal model is not necessary.  So, no need for God.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Huh.  Impressive how you nevber react to the actions of others.  Tell me, are you a parent?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'll pay attention and see if that's true. Because the way you suggests we are socialists and commies suggests you are lying right now


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


You worry about yourself and I'll worry about myself.  Fair enough?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt you did, more than likely you had notional faith; superficial faith.  I suspect if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you really didn't believe even when you thought you believed.  But I could be wrong.  Either way it does not change my point.  You would not be expected to know and understand a faith that is not yours.
> ...



The "No true scotsman" fallacy:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no _true_ Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

The Ding version:

Person A: "Nobody with faith becomes an atheist."
Person B: "But I had faith, and I became an atheist."
Person A: "Ah yes, but nobody with _true_ faith becomes an atheist."

Funny thing is that when those atheists were Christians, Ding would have been praising them for their _true_ faith. Ding only recategorizes faith as "not true" after the change to atheism. How convenient. Perhaps Ding can give us an objective standard to judge whether faith  is "true" in the here and now, without waiting to see what the future brings. But I doubt it.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Not when it comes to transferring control I don't.  Yes, I am a parent.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You seem to have taken it out of context. I would not expect an atheist to understand my faith anymore than I would be able to understand a faith that was not my own.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Just the militant ones, lol.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


How does that impact the matter that does have mass?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It makes it irrelevant in regard to the creation of the universe. Your entire premise is that,  because there is a finite limit to the amount of mass in the universe,  there is a limit to the ability to convert matter to energy. Thus,  it is your contention that,  due to the law of Conservation,  the universe must have an end,  and by inference,  a beginning. 

Unfortunately,  with the discovery of massless matter,  that premise is no longer valid. So,  no loss of mass,  no end,  no beginning. An infinite supply of matter that requires no loss of mass for conversion. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Lol, how do gravitons  impact the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on matter that has mass?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Since you keep asking the same question without comprehension,  I'll let you take time to do a bit of study,  and see if you can't discover how this affects your theory that the universe "must" have a beginning.

Actually,  no I won't.  Answer a question.  Is loss of mass required to convert matter to energy? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


My comprehension is fine. It is you who does not understand the implication of my question.  How do gravitons affect matter which has mass as it pertains to mass to energy transfers and the resulting loss of heat which reduces the usable energy of the system. It doesn't, dumbass. You lose, again.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Very good observations.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The only dumbass here is you.  Allow me to ask the question again.  In fact, let's start simple.

Do you agree that matter is converted to energy at the cost of mass?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

...and whaddoyakno?  ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



They never react to the actions of others.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Not necessarily because mass and energy are equivalent. The loss would occur in either transaction. Do you believe that gravitons prevent the loss of usable energy in a closed system when matter is converted to energy or vice versa?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Clearly you do not understand the concept of locus of control or its implications.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Well,  you tell me.  How much energy would be lost in converting 0 mass to energy? 



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ...and whaddoyakno?  ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...


I'm still waiting to hear if anyone here truly believes they are a living god.  Because from what I'm hearing they think after this shell they live in currently expires, they claim that their "soul" moves on to a place of paradise where they live forever, never unhappy or sad or sick ever again.  In essence these people we are talking to are gods themselves.  Isn't that how you take it?

And so ding shouldn't expect me to understand his faith because I'm not a god myself so I can't possibly understand. 

But then isn't ding telling me that if I want to become a god I have to first believe like he does.  But I can't because I'm not a god.  Ding says you have to be one to feel it.  So how do I become a god with a soul so I can feel it?  Is it basically I just have to want it bad enough I will be willing to suspend all logic?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ...and whaddoyakno?  ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...


What are you yammering about?  You are the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That is not the pertinent question.  Why do we still have usable energy if the universe is eternal?  My point has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe was created. It only has to do with it being impossible for the universe to be eternal or infinite. The 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes that and gravitons have nothing to do with it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



A person with an internal *locus of control* believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes, while someone with an external *locus of control* blames outside forces for everything. 

Can you explain what your point is with this?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That you don't produce results.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No,  it doesn't,  and your refusal to answer the question about energy conversion proves that you know you're wrong,  and just don't want to admit it. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ...and whaddoyakno?  ding has been firing off responses, and suddenly he doesn't want to answera simple question...
> ...



What question(s) didn't he reply to?  Don't be all over the place.  Give him some clear questions you're waiting for an answer on.

And don't ask about locus.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



What results are you looking for?  What is the test or challenge?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


What exactly do gravitons have to do with matter which has mass?  How do gravitons prevent heat loss when matter is converted to energy?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



_“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”_ – Stephen F Roberts


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



How does this prove god exists?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Im not looking for anything from you. I am making an observation about you and projecting your performance from that.  It's called motivational based interviewing and all of the major corporations use it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Okay.  Let's try this another way.  Let us assume that every bit of matter containing mass in the entire universe has been converted into energy.  Is it,  at that point still possible to convert matter to energy? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It won't for you. Nothing will.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Maybe it isn't eternally the way it is now but time and space are eternal, no?  90 trillion years ago time and space existed but this universe may not have existed.  If not, does that mean god didn't exist 90 trillion years ago?  Was he not born yet?

The truth is God was born when we made him up.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


True.  At this point I see no evidence.  All the things I don't know the answer to don't prove god exists.  Fear of the afterlife won't convince me.  Wishful thinking won't.  Because it makes me feel better isn't a reason to believe.  Because it does more good than harm isn't a good reason in fact I believe the opposite.  If it makes you a better person doesn't matter.  Because most people believe doesn't move me.  In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He is convinced that because there is a finite limit on matter with mass in the universe that there is a finite limit to the ammount of matter that can be converted into energy.  Thus, it is his contention that the universe must have both a beginning, and an end.  As such the agent for the "beginning" of the universe is God.  Actually, he knows that this is not true, but he keeps insisting on discounting massless matter, so that he does not have to find some way to fit that into his matter to energy conversion theory.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That would have been the conditions at the Big Bang.  They would have all been subatomic particles.  Most likely nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. They would have rapidly formed hydrogen and helium.  At least the matter that was left over.  The reality is that we have an observable universe that we believe is at least 14 billion years old.  We have observed that all points are moving away from us. The theory of relativity predicts the Big Bang. The 2nd law of thermodynamics confirms that the universe has a finite age and is not infinite because there is still usable energy remaining. What the fuck do you have that proves otherwise?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So, it is your contenmtion, that with no mass-containing matter, there can be no energy conversion, correct?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No. I do not claim the universe must have an end.  Just that it is finite.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No. that it has no effect on the matter that does have mass as it pertains to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Now you are just playing semantics. Okay.  Let's play it your way.  Finite, but without beginning, or end.  Then, no need for a God to "begin" the universe, now is there?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No. Since it is not infinite then it did have a beginning.


----------



## koshergrl (Jan 12, 2017)

Muhammed said:


> I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.


And our attitude is that God created science.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Then even without mass-containing matter, the conversion, and cycle of the universe can, and will continue, ad infinitum.  No limit.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



I know what he's experiencing.  

the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So, lemme get this straight.  You believe the universe is without end, but has a beginning?  Really?  That is your contention?  Care to explain how *that* works?  You are suggesting that it is only finite *in one direction*, but, in the other direction it is infinite.  So...it is your contention that the universe is both simultaneously finite, *and* infinite.  Neat trick...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Just because the universe has an age doesn't mean that another universe didn't exist 14 billion years before the big bang.  We will never know that.  So the answer is we don't know.  We can speculate that there probably was a universe before ours, which seems plausable, or we can limit our minds and believe time itself started with our universe.  Not realizing that if you are right, god too was born 14 billion years ago too.  Is that what you are saying?  Well then what was go doing 28 billion years ago?  If all that there is is our universe, what about before the big bang?  I know it is hard to wrap your brain around that and truly the answer is that this time before time is unknowable.  But that doesn't mean it didn't exist.  But funny you will write it off but not god.

Seriously, what was god doing 1999 billion years ago?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So what your one little universe had a beginning?  That's just one universe.  One tiny universe.  

All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated *100 billion galaxies* in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about *200 billion* as telescope technology in space improves

for a total of something in the order of 10^21 (that's 1 then 21 zeros) planets in the observable Universe. 

And that's just one universe.  There are probably just as many universes as their are galaxies.  

Oh, is that too much for you to imagine?  Is it easier for you to imagine one universe and an invisible man and heaven?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

koshergrl said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


Who's god?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> We have observed that all points are moving away from us.




as explained before, all matter is traveling with a trajectory of a finite angle and will all re-converge at the same time at their origin to replicate a new moment of Singularity. BB is cyclical.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> In fact there isn't one argument for god that doesn't come without a fatal flaw.




*genome: the complete set of genes or genetic material present in a cell or organism.*
_
_
the above is for all living beings, what shapes and where did the genome come from and the manufacturing process of organic tissue - before the beings inception ... and please, it is not related to the awful 4th century coup d'etat.

as a spoken language ... the beings existence post operative.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


massless matter is still matter...even if it is infinite what created it?

since nothing can create itself why does matter exist?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



And it might not be the same starting point the next time.  Maybe another black hole will start off the next big bang.  I know there seems to be order but that isn't always the case.  When the universe was young it was chaos like a pinball machine when it drops a bonus 10 balls all at once and you try to keep as many of those 10 balls in play and while they are they are all over the place sometimes even banging against each other and causing a chain reaction. 

If this chain reaction didn't happen the dinosaurs may never have gone extinct.  The trees might not have been all knocked down either.  So basically we would have stayed monkey's in the trees.  Just like a dolphin's brain is really evolved but they can't build a ship to go to the moon, we wouldn't be driving in cars either if the dinosaurs were still around.  Maybe.  Who knows.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



What created god?

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Why there is no god


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.
_we are star stuff_


I agree, that was not the issue what is the guidance for life present in the genome ...


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



"As a consequence of quantum mechanical uncertainty, any object or process that exists for a limited time or in a limited volume cannot have a precisely defined energy or momentum. This is the reason that virtual particles – which exist only temporarily as they are exchanged between ordinary particles – do not necessarily obey the mass-shell relation. However, the longer a virtual particle exists, the more closely it adheres to the mass-shell relation. A "virtual" particle that exists for an arbitrarily long time is simply an ordinary particle – in that sense electromagnetic waves, e.g. in a microwave oven, consist of real photons rather than virtual ones. (A typical power oven emitting microwaves of roughly λ=3_cm_ at a power of 700 _W_ produces {\displaystyle 10^{26}}
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 real photons per second.)

However, all particles have a finite lifetime, as they are created and eventually destroyed by some processes. As such, there is no absolute distinction between "real" and "virtual" particles. In practice, the lifetime of "ordinary" particles is far longer than the lifetime of the virtual particles that contribute to processes in particle physics, and as such the distinction is useful to make."

Virtual particle - Wikipedia


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That is a presumption. You are still thinking in linear terms.  The universe is cyclical.  Energy converted to matter, matter converted to energy, in endless cycle, no need for any outside motivator.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


Ad your point?  The fact remains that these virtual particles can be infinitely created, and destroyed to fuel the "engine" of the universe, wthout affecting the overall mass of the universe, thus without "violating" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


so what created the endless cycle you describe?  what created the matter/whatever within the cycle?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I don't know about all that but what amazes me is how small a micro animal is and yet they have all the animal parts we have even though they are tiny.  And then we think we are so big or our planet is so big but compared to other planets our planet is tiny.  And our sun is a tiny sun.  In the grand scheme of things we are nothing in a sea of life.  We are just too far away to see it and we aren't smart enough to detect it or go visit it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't know, what?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



So you like it that religion gives you an answer that doesn't make sense and can't be proven?  That makes you comfortable?  

We can figure out what the original cause is but not why the original cause.  Heck, we might even be able to answer that but not what the purpose is.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'


Ok.  and until just over 100 years ago science couldn't answer the question "how does the sun work?"

Science isn't an object or a source...it's a process and method of discovery and knowledge.

No...we don't know how the universe came about or the details.  Maybe we never will. But "Goddidit" isn't an answer. It doesn't mean anything more than "We don't know."
If God created the universe...how? and where was God's existence before the universe was created, and can that even be explained in a way that would make sense?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


It was converted from energy.  And before you ask, the energy came fromt he conversion of matter, which was converted from energy, etcetera.  You seem to think that there had to be an outside force that created one, or the other.  Why?  What is your evidence to support this claim?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


You are preseming that there *was* an "original cause", or that one was necessary. And your support for this claim is...?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


We don't know.  Maybe our universe was born because we are at the other end of a black hole?  Maybe an old universe on the other side of that black hole is what created our current universe.  And maybe a black hole in their universe created them.  And maybe if you went into a black hole in our universe eventually you would end up in another universe.  

Was there ever a universe before our universe?  If our universe is 14 billion years old, what was happening 300 years before our big bang?  What was god doing before our big bang?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I will never understand why Theists need everything to be all wrapped up in a nice little bow, regardless of how irrational it is.  They are absoutlely terrified by, "I don't know" as a response to anything.  Personally, I find "I don't know" to be one of the most exciting phrases in existence.  Because it invites us to explore, and try to find out.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


God.....according to theists
Nothing.....according to atheists (which is pretty crazy)


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. The zero-energy universe states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. That is the only kind of universe that could come from nothing, assuming such a zero-energy universe _is_, already, nothing.  Such a universe would need to be flat, a state which does not contradict current observations that the universe is flat with a 0.5% margin of error.

Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, define nothing as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles. This is different from the philosophical conception of nothing, which has no inherent properties, and is not governed by physical laws.

Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.

The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a First Cause exists, not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


No you stupid little fuck!  For god sakes have you not been listening?  

I DON'T KNOW according to Atheists.  

MUST BE A GOD THAT DID IT according to stupid superstitious ignorant primitive theists.  

Hold on everyone.  Eagle is about to tell us why we exist!


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



You believing you are a god who will live forever in a place called heaven after you die and never get sick or never be unhappy is pretty crazy.  And thinking your grandparents are waiting for you there.  Are you a child?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

pinqy said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > my point is science does not answer the question 'what is the original cause?'
> ...


"Goddidit" is an answer.....if there is a first cause/supreme being then why not call it God?  'nothing' sure doesn't cut it....

also who or what do you think made the universe so orderly?....who or what created all the scientific laws that govern our physical world?  scientists sure don't have the answer to that one...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



"*God of the gaps*" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase as a criticism of theological positions, to mean that God is used as a spurious explanation for anything not currently explained by science.

those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

During World War II the German theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer expressed the concept in similar terms in letters he wrote while in a Nazi prison. Bonhoeffer wrote, for example:

how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



*Complexity/Order proves god exists.*
The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2, Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

_“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.”_ – Lawrence Krauss

_“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”_ – Charles Darwin

*






Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.
*


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


isn't that a valid scientific question?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


are you a materialist?  science has its limitations don't you agree?  how can you measure or weigh an idea or a thought?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No. Not an endless cycle. So says the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


A couple quotes from Andrew Flew (1923-2010).....one of the most famous atheists in the past half century:


I now believe there is a God...I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.

Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature. But it is not science alone that guided me. I have also been helped by a renewed study of the classical philosophical arguments.

I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Nope. That's not what we observe at all.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nope. Our best guess right now is nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.  All starting in the space of an atom. Mind blowing stuff. The atoms in your body have existed for over 14 billion years in one form or another.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes we are. The Bible called this before science did. DNA too.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



Really?  I never heard of him.  He's not a very good atheist.

And I'm ok with his god.  He's not telling me he believes in the god that visited and has a hell waiting for people who don't believe.  Did he convert to Christianity?  So his "god" is harmless.  I'm ok with that.  

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticized the idea of life after death, the free will defense to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. In 2003 he was one of the signatories of the Humanist Manifesto III.[6] However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a God.

Sounds like one of those people who start believing the closer they get to death because they are afraid.  
 Flew's intellect had declined, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[8] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views, and he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.

I'm reading up on him and sorry but I think he was old and at that time bat shit crazy.  Sorry.

Antony Flew - Wikipedia


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Show me.

Man—in the form of Adam—was indeed made from the “dust” of the ground. However, the Earth and its component materials were created before the stars, not from the stars (Gen. 1:16).

Read more at: Are humans made of stardust? • ChristianAnswers.Net


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



And my soul will live for all eternity in paradise.  I'm a human now but soon I will be a god myself.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Greeks had figured out atoms 500 years before Jesus.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




What do you say to this?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

How can one explain this sophisticated messaging, coding, residing in our cells?

On June 26, 2000, President Clinton congratulated those who completed the human genome sequencing. President Clinton said, "Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift."7 Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, followed Clinton to the podium stating, "It is humbling for me and awe inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."8

When looking at the DNA structure within the human body, we cannot escape the presence of intelligent (incredibly intelligent) design.

According to the Bible (which is itself incredibly complex) God is not only the Author of our existence, but he is the Relationship that makes our existence meaningful. All the intangibles in life that we crave...enough strength for any situation, joy, wisdom, and knowing we are loved...God alone gives these to us as we listen to him and trust him. He is our greatest, reliable guide in life. Just as he has engineered DNA to instruct the cell, he offers to instruct us to make our lives function well, for his glory and for our sake, because he loves us.

Why is DNA important? It's one more proof for God. He designed our bodies. He can also be trusted to design your life. Have you ever begun a relationship with God? This explains how you can: Knowing God Personally.

For further evidence that seeks to answer the question, "Is God real?" please see Is There a God?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


"I don't know" is not the same as "nothing".  Besides, nothing is certainly more sane than an imaginary invisible cosmic tinkerer.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


You get that the universe *isn't* orderly, right?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


No, because it infers a violation of the First law of Thermodynamics.  It implies that there can be an effect without a cause.  "God created the universe,"  Okay.  From whence came God.  In order for this "God" to have existed, something must have created *it*.  However, that would negate it being God; rather it is just another effect of some other cause.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


Sure.  However, ideas, and thoughts are personal, and subjective.  One can hardly use them as objective evidence of divinity, now can one.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


There you go trying to understand quantum mechanics with your high school physics again.  Come on back when you develop the ability to understand how it is possible to convert matter into energy without losing mass.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's not what *you* observe with your limited understanding of physics.  That's your problem, not the problem of science.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


Seem to me your argument is we are too perfect to not have a creator. But I say if we have a creator it isn't a perfect God because we aren't perfect.

Our Creator is something physical, real and can be explained scientifically. And some questions are unknowable.

Why would a God create an eye that wears out? He could have made the eye better. So he's not a perfect all knowing thing. Must not be


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


In November of 1919, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was confirmed by an eclipse where light rays from distant stars were deflected by the gravity of the sun in just the amount he had predicted in his theory of gravity, general relativity.  Since then, general relativity has been reaffirmed in a myriad of other ways.  In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time.  General relativity was applied to the structure and evolution of the universe as a whole. The leading cosmological theory, called the Big Bang theory, was formulated in 1922 by the Russian mathematician and meteorologist Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of extremely high density and temperature (the so-called Big Bang) and then expanded in time, thinning out and cooling as it did so.That the universe had a beginning is widely accepted within the scientific community.  The Big Bang theory has been independently validated by Hubble and Slipher - who discovered that spiral galaxies were moving away from earth - and the discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.  It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter.  For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.  The cosmic evolutionary phase - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly.  It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.  The stellar evolutionary phase saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.  The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).  These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter.  Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state.  During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase.  Each phase were controlled by the laws of nature which came into existence with space and time.  The data undeniably shows that at the early beginning the universe was hot and dense and has expanded.

*Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory*
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?


First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
Big Bang Theory

That's what I have observed.  And don't forget that entropy proves the universe is not eternal and therefore must be of a finite age.  So clearly not only do I have a sound scientific basis for my beliefs, I have the scientific consensus.  This is objective evidence.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I read it as Creation was built in steps which is exactly what we have found.  The Bible was right that we came from dust, star dust.  Science tells us that the energy and matter that make up who we are today was created when Creation came into existence.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Why do you believe perfection is the standard of measure?  Were you not given the rarest gift in the universe?  How fucking perfect was that?  I think I'll take all that goes with life and be thankful for the gift I was given, bad eyes included.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


People like you like to pretend they understand quantum mechanics. You bandy it around like you understand what it means.  You do dumbass things like try to disprove the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because of a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation and has an extremely low cross section for interaction with matter.

"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions.  Wow.  

Most theories containing gravitons suffer from severe problems. Attempts to extend the Standard Model or other quantum field theories by adding gravitons run into serious theoretical difficulties at energies close to or above the Planck scale. This is because of infinities arising due to quantum effects; technically, gravitation is not renormalizable. Since classical general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to be incompatible at such energies, from a theoretical point of view, this situation is not tenable..."

Graviton - Wikipedia


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The only solution to the first cause is the eternal.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 12, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


.


ScreamingEagle said:


> that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.




as a plural intelligence of many Spirits - under guidance ... hopefully this thought of your post is not an avenue to christianity but of a true understanding of life.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And, as ahs been repeatedly demonstrated, your "observations" are decidedly out of date, overly simplistic, and lacking in understanding:

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity. 

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told _Phys.org_.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in _Physics Letters B_ that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.​
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

You really shouldn't try to to make definitive statements about the nature of the universe with only a high school physics understanding of cosmology.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You seem to have missed the last line in that article you read: "One possible solution is to replace particles with strings. String theories are quantum theories of gravity in the sense that they reduce to classical general relativity plus field theory at low energies, but are fully quantum mechanical, contain a graviton, and are thought to be mathematically consistent."  In other words, the problem isn't with including gravitons, and other qwuantum particles in theories, but with replacing the classic particle equations, with strings, and beams; a more sophisticated, and elegant understanding of the quantum composition of the universe.

Stick to bargain basement theology; physics, and quantum mechanics is clearly above your understanding.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You mean like believing the universe had a beginning?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Thank you for proving the point in my signature.  "They worship science but are the first to reject it when it does not suit their purposes."


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  I saw it.  I also saw all that other stuff.  I don't claim to be a quantum mechanics expert, that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.  You on the other hand know very little about it.   We have evidence that the universe started as a very hot and dense object and expanded and cooled.  There was a beginning.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics corroborates it.  And gravitons have nothing to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I reject nothing.  I updated your outdated understanding.  Guess what?  50 years ago one would reasonably have insisted that petroleum was the only way to power the engine of an automobile,  because that was our technical understanding *of the time*. However were you to try to suggest that,  to day,  I would quickly,  and easily demonstrate how incorrect you are.  That wouldn't be "denying science,  or engineering"; it would be demonstrating that *your understanding* of such is woefully outdated.

As it is with your understanding of physics,  and cosmology. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Whose have I dismissed?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No,  there wasn't. You *believe* there was - because you need to,  because without that hypothetical beginning your entire theological position falls apart - but there is a perfectly reasonable, and mathematically sound,  theory of cosmology which requires no such beginning. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


My understanding of understanding of physics and cosmology is just fine.  I wasn't the one arguing that gravitons negated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  Time and space are not eternal.  Time and space came into existence.  At which time the matter and energy that make up you today were created.  Before that point nothing existed.  We don't know what is outside the box.  We can only know what is inside it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I didn't say it negates it; I said it *bypasses it*.  There is a difference.
I also asked you a question, which you refused to answer, b3ecause it destroys your position.  When massless matter is converted into enegy how mauch mass is lost in the conversion?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And yet you keep coming back here to talk about it.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I have found the best way to get over my cognitive dissonance is a nice drive in my vette after a round of golf at the club.  I think I'll do that tomorrow.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The universe we are in right now... had a beginning.  Yes, time literally began when space and time came into existence.  That's why they say space AND time.  It is represented as four dimensions.  There was no such thing as time or space before that.  That's what we know. 

If I can't get you to accept that, how in the hell do you believe it is possible that I could convince you of God?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I can perfectly imagine that.  I would also imagine that they all too had a beginning.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


I'm just saying whatever created us was natural and not perfect, all knowing, caring and watching us.

Did you see how many solar systems are in the universe? It's a mind blowing number. There's probably nothing rare about us. More likely typical.
Should i worship thank and respect whatever put me here? Sure I guess I do give thanks for whatever put me here.

But I see no holy book as evidence this thing that caused the universe is anything other than a physical thing that we haven't yet explained.

Are we talking generic God or one who visited? We may never know what generic God is because it might be unknowable. Why does the thing that created the universe have to be a God?

Then you might be talking about a God who visited. That's an entirely different conversation


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why that is just as fascinating as the other 89 times you told me this.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


We all agree this universe had a beginning but what about God before 14 billion years ago. Certainly there BB and ab. That's pretty big bang after big bang


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'd say whoever created this was one bad ass mother that I wouldn't want to cross.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The only solution to the first cause is the eternal.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


God is existence.  Nothing created existence.  Existence like truth and love are eternal.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


There was never a beginning and there will never be an end!!!! Why can't you understand that but you can imagine yourself living on for eternity? You thirsts are so arrogant


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - George Wald, Scientific American, August, 1954.

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

D


ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


I looked up the word existence and it didn't mention God. So existence doesn't help your claims about the god that we know and discuss. 

How is love eternal? Tell that to the martians who lived 3 billion years agoo and thought the universe was made for them. Right now they are dustt. They were lucky to have lived too. 

I'll give thanks to whatever put us here. Whatever that is? Nature? I'll worship nature. Do you think God cares if I call him nature?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 12, 2017)

.
there is certainly intelligence within the universe, genome of life and certainly that multifaceted composition (many) has nothing to do with 4th century christianity ...


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes, there was a beginning.  I don't know about the end, but as long as it continues entropy will increase such that when it approaches infinity there will be no more usable energy left in the system.  We don't see that.  I don't imagine anything about what happens after I die.  I imagine dying well.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> D
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...


You can't give thanks to something you aren't thankful for.  I don't think He cares what you call Him as long as you call Him.  Love has always existed as the native state of the trinity.  

Whether or not you believe God is existence is irrelevant, He is.  His words, not mine.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


To each his own.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Is that so?  You don't say.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


It looks pretty darn orderly to me.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Bipasses it?  You mean it has no effect on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics like I have been telling you all along?

What question did I miss?  Don't be an idiot.  The only thing you destroyed was your ego.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


So, your solution to the illogic of your position is special pleading.  Every effect must have a cause...except your mythical God.  He's "special".  That's what is known as a logical fallacy, my friend.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


My mission is to wake people up. To let them they are not crazy thinking it's all made up. It is! And this stupidity is holding us back.

Look at how much time we've wasted


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


If you say so..


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I'll ask again: When massless matter is converted into enegy how much mass is lost in the conversion?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Well I can see how you feel blessed. Some believe for that reason but I know other theists who would kill themselves if they thought this was all there was.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Good Lord, must you continually misstate my positions?  Oh, yeah... you do.    Actually if you notice I didn't state God, lol.  I defined the solution and you made the connection to God.  On a side note, our equations breakdown at the singularity and yield infinities.  It seems that even our equations know the answer to the first cause.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Me included.  But making good choices should be rewarded.  I think I'll go to my gun club after golf.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Because you're leaving out before our time and space. Was God born 14 billion years ago too? You think this is his first or last universe?

Why do you put God in a box?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


None.  What does that have to do when matter that has mass is converted into energy?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Now you are just being silly.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > D
> ...


His word? When did he say it?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And your solution is a logical fallacy.   the "first cause' is speciual.  It's different.  I don't care what you label that difference ("eternal"), it is still a texbook case of special pleading.  As to your not mentioning God in that particular post, it is irrelevant.  Your entire argument has been to "prove" the existence of God.  So what, now, suddenly, that "first cause" *isn't* God?  What is it?  Fred?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


When they asked Him His name?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's your answer? Those were serious questions. If you can't answer them that's cognitive dissonance


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Logically.... there is no other solution except something that is eternal.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No.  They weren't serious questions.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Who asked him?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Can't remember.  I just remember what He answered.  It was kind of important.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Actually, there is.  That you are wrong about the existence of a "First Cause".  Then there is no need tfor a special pleading, now is there?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Logically... there is a first cause.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes they were. You can't imagine time before our universe. I can even though it's unknowable I believe that time existed and so must you if you believe God is eternal.

I just think time and space is eternal. No God necessary


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Logically there *can't   *be a First Cause.  Unless you are suggesting that the laws of physics are wrong, and that every effect *doesn't* require a cause.  I find it interesting how you plead your high school physics, right up until they don't support your case.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Not possible.  Time has no meaning outside of this universe.  In fact, it is not even clear if time exists, it's called the trouble with time.   Anyway, none of that makes a hill of beans difference when it comes to our observable universe.  We know that the universe started in an extremely hot and dense state and has expanded and cooled since that time.  What happened before that point, science cannot know.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Time and space are eternal no God necessary. What happened before our universe and what happens after are unknowable but it's funny God gets to be eternal but time and space can't.

In every argument you make you always leave something out. I believe you are willfully ignorantly lying for the lord


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yes, the first cause which is outside of this universe is not bound by the natural laws of our universe.


----------



## MaryL (Jan 12, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?


Are theists able to use rational thought, use deductive reasoning, and yadda yadda? Ban The teaching of Evolution to condemning  Galileo's teachings as heretical? So are we going somewhere here? Religion burns people to death and crashes planes into buildings, so if there  IS a more rational way of thought  and behavior, it isn't religious. And religion isn't in any way in a position to point out who's who among the irrational given what they have done and are doing now.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I am sorry to burst your bubble, but time and space are an artifact of this universe.  They do not exist outside of it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Back to special pleading.  *Your* cause is "special".  It's "eternal", and not subject to physics.  This is the problem with insisting on your imaginary God; ultimately you an only support your position by relying on logigcal fallacy, and irrational arguments.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes possible. 

It has no meaning for you! 

And yes, it isn't clear. Finally we are agreeing.

What happened before the universe is unknowable so why are you claiming to know a God existed before our universe?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Free your mind and the rest will follow.

In order to learn the truth you may have to think outside the box(universe)


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Nothing outside of space and time is subject to physics.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I agree with that and that is exactly what I did too.  The Truth will set you free.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Because He is the first cause.  He is existence.  

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I have not left anything out, that is you making an excuse for your performance.  See external locus of control for more information.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> In order to learn the truth you may have to think outside the box(universe)



Was the irony of this lost on you?


----------



## sartre play (Jan 12, 2017)

Is that the end all, that if you doubt or don't believe then God will not except you, and your going to hell?


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

sartre play said:


> Is that the end all, that if you doubt or don't believe then God will not except you, and your going to hell?


Don't know.  Don't even know what heaven and hell is other than being with or separated from God.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 12, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're absolutely right.  Nothing is subject to the laws of physics,  because nothing is all that exists outside of time and space. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Nothing that we can directly observe.  Yes.  That's where faith comes in.


----------



## ding (Jan 12, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Thanks.  Yes, I do.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 12, 2017)

koshergrl said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
> ...


What is God, in your opinion?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Which is a polite way of saying believing in fantasies.  Sorry.  There is nothing outside of Time and Space, and wishing it so does not make it so.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Not based on the arguments you're making


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I have more good reason for my faith than you do for yours.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm not making any arguments.  That's what you want me to do.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


  What do you think about the theories of parallel worlds,  multiple universes,  or other realms or dimensions to existence?

Do you think that your consciousness is bound by space and time and subject to the laws of physics because it is connected to this reality by a body that is?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


When do you work and when do you golf?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No you don't but you are the first theist to bore me.  LOL. Usually the theist stops but you have forced me to lose interest and give up.  Mission accomplished I bet huh god believer?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 13, 2017)

.


sealybobo said:


> When do you work and when do you golf?




supposedly bing found himself after wandering in the wilderness ... and christianity is what saved him, big surprise.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No,  you don't.  What objective evidence do you have that anything exists beyond reality?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


They're fun thought exercises, but without any objective evidence to support their existence, they are useless in any practical sense.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


what reality?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 13, 2017)

.


hobelim said:


> Do you think that your consciousness is bound by space and time and subject to the laws of physics because it is connected to this reality by a body that is?




if there were not a way for the Spirit to disconnect from its physiology it would perish with it, end of story ... how about trapped or confined till finding a way out, freeing itself while defying the known laws of physics.

if not now then as an evolutionary objective, like utilizing oxygen to not just vitalize blood but also as a nourishment minimizing the need for body mass.

which came first: the Spirit or physiology.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Usually every other Friday (9/80), then a couple of times on the weekends, after work 2 to 3 times a week when DST hits and then during my 6 weeks of vacation.  Of course this year I have carried over so much vacation (52 days in 2017) that I will be taking all Friday's off.  For the last 4 months we have been working 16 hour days and weekends.  I had 131 rounds through September.  Since September I've had 4.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


We've gone over this a dozen times, what He created and what I have tested.  What do you have?


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> ...


Not exactly, more like I realized something was missing.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


What reason do you have for yours?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You believe there is more than one?  And your *objective* evidence to support that belief would be...?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



It is easy to believe that reality as we see it is a reflection of reality as it actually is. In other words we tend to assume that the perceptual function that the mind plays is passive, like a mirror, and doesn’t alter the image of reality that it reflects to us. Not so, said Kant. Our perception of reality might start with sensations of something outside of ourselves, but by the time we perceive it our mind has organized, categorized and arranged those raw sensations into reality as it appears to us.

We can’t know reality directly. We don’t perceive of things in themselves. What we perceive as reality is in part created by our minds. And this creation of reality isn’t only the unconscious work of the mind as a machine, as some before Kant had believed, the creative process that constructs reality as we see it is also influenced by us. Of all of the infinite sensations, physical, emotional and conceptual that we experience at any given time we are only aware of a small percentage. The rest we ignore, but those that we attend to are compiled into reality as we see it.
.....
What Kant did for Western Philosophy was make human beings part of the creative process of reality as we see it. In this he dealt a blow to both religion and science. To religion he insisted that we can’t perceive of God directly because our perception of God will also be partly of our own construction. To science likewise he takes away the ruse of objectivity because everything we observe will always be influenced by us.

Kant and the Creation of Reality


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


ding said:


> Not exactly, more like I realized something was missing.




and what could your 4th century savior provide that only they posses the answer for [sic] in whatever you were seeking to find.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Taking a quick break


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You're going to hell

Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, 
*Jeremiah 9:23*

*Proverbs 27:1 *
Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring.


----------



## Ancient lion (Jan 13, 2017)

*Dear Mr Atheist - You have no right !*
**


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...


The problem is that this is a premise, not a conclusion.  By what validated methodology did Kant arrive at his conclusions?  Further, of what practical value is Kant's noumena?  After all, if, by the very act of observing any part of his trancendental "reality", one negates it "true nature", then, in the end Kant's entire philosophical construct is nothing more than an amusing, if elaborate thought experiment.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Probably.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's weak.  You have nothing.  It is a good thing you didn't try to play it like you did.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That argument isn't objective.

Beyond that, your logic is circular, isn't it?  You're essentially saying that god created it, thus there must be a god.  

I think you need to take that first huge step of believing there is a superhuman intelligence regardless of evidence or anything else.

Trying to cough up objective evidence of god is a fool's errand.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 13, 2017)

Ancient lion said:


> *Dear Mr Atheist - You have no right !*
> **


Mohammed wiped the shit from his asshole with his hand. Is that who you worship?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That's rather the point I have been making all along.  Theists can believe whatever they like.  That is their right.  However, please do not insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that their belief is rational, or that it is based on objective, verifiable evidence.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

Ancient lion said:


> *Dear Mr Atheist - You have no right !*
> **


Yeah, you were doing all right, right up until you accused atheists of minimalizing things like murder, and rape.  You're right.  Science cannot measure, or weigh *ethical questions*, however, ethics is a matter of human behaviour; it doesn't require religion to explain it.  Further, why should I prove that I have a "mind".  After all, "mind" is a sociological construct.  It is just a term used to label the ability of man to reason; it is a label used to set man above the lower animals who lack such capacity.  What one wishes to call that ability is arbitrary, like so many of our labels.

Do you know why, Ancient Lion, red is red?  Because that is what we called it.  That's it.  We could have, when we first learned how to label things, called Wankinstuffel, then for all time we would have been talking about the colour wankenstiuffel.  But, we didn't.  We called it red.  So, now it's red.

The same with the concept of "the mind".  It'a just a label to describe the processex of consciousness, rationality, and determined behaviour.

"God", on the ohther hand, is insisted by theists, to be an actual thing - an entity, a being.  As such, there *should* be actual, observable, identifiable evidence of its existence.  Yet, there.  Is.  Nothing.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


In this case it isn't hard.  There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into  a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner.  They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Ancient lion said:
> 
> 
> > *Dear Mr Atheist - You have no right !*
> ...


"

"God", on the ohther hand, is insisted by theists, to be an actual thing - an entity, a being.  As such, there *should* be actual, observable, identifiable evidence of its existence.  Yet, there.  Is.  Nothing."

I agree with what you're saying.  But, I would add that the lack of evidence of God does not mean there is no God.

Basically, we have no legitimate scientific evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.  One has to resort to logic and "evidence" that is fundamentally religious in order to say ANYTHING about god.

Or, at least that's my view.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes.  There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous.  Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof.  It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption.  All such arguments are circular.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Ancient lion said:
> ...


*sigh* Can't anyone ever come up with an original thought?  As I have said repeatedly,  rational atheism does not maintain that the existence of divinity is an impossibility.  Rather it assumes the default position of scientific study - the null correspondence.  In other words,  the default position is that God does not exist. It is up to those who insist that God does exist to present objective evidence to support that position.  Once such evidence is,  indeed,  presented,  then the null position is abandoned in favour of a new hypothesis that fits with the evidence presented. Until then,  the default position of "God does not exist" is maintained. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


We have what was created as evidence.  We can study that.  There's nothing circular about it.  There are two options, there either is or there isn't.  It is not circular to examine each option.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Sure.  But, that is essentially a feature of scientific method.

And, the point is in whether one is interested in using scientific method or a method of religion.

The "null correspondence" thing is one difference.  But there are others, too.  For example, science and religion don't share fundamental assumptions, what constitutes evidence, or even rules of logic.

I didn't mention your point, because the fact that science would assume the nonexistence of God as the starting point doesn't hit me as something that any religiously oriented individual would even care about.

Of course, I then turned around and pointed to the existence of god as the fundamental assumption of religion.  My only excuse is that those of religion who try to "prove" god seem to miss this that.


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 13, 2017)

MaryL said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...


Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread.   Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism.   They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes, we can and will continue to study and broaden our understanding of our universe.

That IS what science does.

But, you are suggesting there is evidence for a particular outcome on one question (the existence or nonexistence of an all-powerful intelligence), and there you have a real problem.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


No.  I don't.  There are plenty of signs if one only looks with an open mind.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


All hypothesis start out as unproven.  It must be examined and tested to be proven.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 13, 2017)

.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.




nor is there a theism with a physical connection to any supernatural beliefs. 

the beginning of life becoming sustainable is born by only a single planet within its own atmosphere and is not a universal event. the argument for atheism resides in a factual understanding for planet Earth till theism proves otherwise. one does not have to be exclusive of the other, the dimension of life may reside within both.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


I think what you're saying is that the question of the existence of life in other places in the universe is independent of the question of whether there is a god.

True?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Only if you *presume* that the universe was,  in fact created.  In order to do that,  you need to,  first,  provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God,  and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism.  Ultimately,  it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy,  or another,  in order to accept its conclusions. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 13, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


WillReadmore said:


> I think what you're saying is that the question of the existence of life in other places in the universe is independent of the question of whether there is a god.




if there is life in other places there is not a shared atmosphere that binds them together at least with Earth.  life is the reason for religion and that religion may simply be the factual understanding of the genome and the influences that created it however also there may be an Everlasting our life may lead us to. ruled by an Almighty.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


Even when it is of the natural world?   If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


Sure, make the presumption and then test it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Okay.  Test away.  How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


What do you think I've been doing, lol.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No.  You're bobbing in and out of reality here.

"Shared atmosphere"???
"Religion as a factual understanding"???
"Everlasting life"??

Yes, you can say this stuff from a position firmly inside the religious sphere.  And, the reason is that within that sphere you can say literally any kind of stuff you want without any constraint at all.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore.  You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand *the nature* of God, not *to prove the existence* of God.  God's existence is being presumed.  You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You have been trying to demonstrate *the nature of God*, based on "His Creation".  Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the *existence* of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled.  We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago.  We know that space and time came into existence.  We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise.  We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes.  We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created.  We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter.  We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify.  We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.  We know that the universe has become a self referential system.  We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


No.  I could study it regardless.   See?  I am studying it right now.


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Are you under the illusion that you can prove the existence of a supernatural being in the natural world?  The best we can do is study the natural world and examine it for indirect evidence of a Creator.  You have no interest in that because it opposes your worldview.  It threatens you.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.


ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Science does that all the time.  No problem with that.  

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science.  You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work.  When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."  

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We don't know all of these things.  For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created."  We know no such thing.  Simply because Homo Sapiens *did* evolve, in no way indicates that thery were *predestined* to evolve.  You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence.  Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff.  Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.  

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You can, but any conclusions that you arrive at are faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 13, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, I am under the impression that claiming the existence of a "supernatural" being is unsupportable by evidence.  If you want to *believe* that such beings exist, that is your perogative.  However, please do not insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that such can be proven by objective evidence.


----------



## RWS (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Migration of what? 

Domination and slavery? 

It's also cool if you refuse the origin of your religion, and just accept what you were taught when you were born. 

Until you're 10 years old at the latest... 

And then you have to start questioning stuff... And at your advanced age, you haven't started questioning yet. Why? Are you that deep in the shit?


----------



## RWS (Jan 14, 2017)

Have you ever doubted anything about your religion?

Did anything ever seem kinda fishy? 

And if so, have you researched why?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But how do you get to the god of the bible?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What is it about the BB that proves that intelligent being were predestined to come into being? Or did you make that up?
Also how does matter evolve? An atom of gold turns into something else?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





WillReadmore said:


> Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.
> 
> Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.



It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles.  Can you give an example of my "flip?"  I don't follow you.



ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





WillReadmore said:


> Science does that all the time.  No problem with that.
> 
> However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.



Agreed, I never said otherwise.  I can learn certain things about you.




WillReadmore said:


> The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science.  You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.



No.  I don't believe I have done that.  Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?



WillReadmore said:


> We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work.  When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."
> 
> After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."
> 
> ...



Again, I don't know how you are making this leap.  I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created.  I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


No, I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore for it to be evidence.  All tangible items can be used as evidence.  This the part we are going around in circles over.  You can't seem to differentiate between evidence and what evidence means or tells us or implies.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And is it your contention that science can do those things?  I am afraid that the best we can do is to study what was created and evaluate that as indirect evidence for a Creator.  You keep demanding definitive proof of the supernatural where there can never be any.  Of the two positions, mine is the more reasonable.  I don't demand the impossible, you do.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The potential for everything which is possible and has come to pass was controlled by the laws of nature.  You can either believe that or you can believe in a special  creative act of God.  The reality is that we do live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I agree.  We can not directly prove the supernatural through the natural.  Which begs the question, why do people keep demanding that we do?  That seems illogical at best and disingenuous at worst.  I am not trying to prove the existence of God.  I've done that for myself already.  That is a decision each person must make for himself.  I am trying to prove that there is evidence that can be used to inform that decision.  How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Wow, did you just really write that?  I guess your mind is made up.  Why do you keep asking for evidence then?  After all you just admitted that you prejudge any conclusions arrived at as faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence.  Why do you keep asking for it?  Are you illogical?  Or disingenuous?  

You have shown yourself to be incapable of honest dialogue when you argued that the universe did not have a beginning, even though all of the evidence at hand shows the universe started from an extremely tiny hot dense space and expanded and cooled, not to mention your dismissal of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which precludes an eternal universe from what we observe today.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


1. Cosmic evolution
2. Stellar evolution
3. Chemical evolution
4. Evolution of life
5. Evolution of consciousness

All potentialities at the moment space and time were created.  All controlled by natural laws.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm not doing that though.  Right now I am just trying to prove that there is indirect physical evidence for a Creator.  When are you going to stop demanding proof that you know is impossible to provide?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


Migration of mankind from a central location.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


First of all, the Catholic religion doesn't believe in evolution. But mainly, saying that intelligent beings were predestined from the BB to exist, is like you're looking at the end of a football season and saying that this season was predestined to have team x win, after you know they've won. It's not logical.
And again, how does matter evolve? One atom turns into something else over time?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.


Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."



Mudda said:


> What proof is there that the universe was created by the god of the bible? Anything at all?



It is the only revealed religion.  The allegorical account of Creation.  The account of the Great Migration.  etc.,



Mudda said:


> There's is an affirmative argument for agnosticism, as there's no proof either way for or against a god.



You are not agnostic.  If you were you would be arguing equally the other side.  You don't do that.  You have a horse in the race.  



Mudda said:


> But how do you get to the god of the bible?



After an extensive study of the major religions.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


https://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/EVOLUTN.TXT

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the very early universe conditions should have generated matter and antimatter in equal amounts. The inability of matter and antimatter to survive each other should have led to a universe with only a bit of each left as the universe expanded. Yet today's universe holds far more matter than antimatter.  For reasons no one yet understands, nature ruled out antimatter.

The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - occurred quickly.  It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles.  

The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.  The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust).  

These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter.  Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state.  During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase.  Each phase was pre-destined to occur, because the physical laws existed at the very beginning of Creation.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell.   And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification.  By evolving from sub-atomic particles to hydrogen and helium - the first two elements - matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state during its cosmic evolutionary phase.  Then during the stellar evolutionary phase, matter evolved from a more simple state to a more advanced state when the development of complex stars evolved from the chaotic first elements.  Non-living matter reached its potential during the chemical evolutionary phase when all chemical elements evolved from the original two elements from supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies.  This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind.  Except in this case it was star dust that was spread.  Again this process followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements that we see today.  Like non-living matter, life followed this pattern as well.  

One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself.  When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself.  This is called the expansionary phase.  During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition.  Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase.  During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > But you don't know who or how the universe was created, and you never proved shit. Saying that the universe is proof of a god just doesn't make sense, it's proof of something, just what has not been proven.
> ...


Leon doesn't know what there was before the BB. Humans may figure it out one day. But ok, if there is a god, he'd know. But no such god has ever been proven EITHER WAY. Making me agnostic.
What is "the only revealed religion"? What does that mean?
So you studied all the religions and figured you'd pick the one that made the most sense to you? Like I've said before, your standards are way too low.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ok, I get it now, you're talking about the origins/evolution of matter from the earliest moments of the BB, and how stars make other elements. But how is that related to god?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


*All* tangible items can be evidence?  Okay, go out in your front yard, pick up a random rock, and tell us what that rock tells you about WillReadMore.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You don't know anything about my standards or me.  All the other religions were men seeking God.  None made the claim that God was seeking them.  But revelation will be given to people who seek God.  That's why there are not material differences between the religions on the important matters, at least not on the central theme of dying to self to see objective truth.  I read each religion in its best possible light.  That was my standard.  The main difference between the religions is the nature of God.  That's not surprising as it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God.  To me that is all theology bullshit anyway as they all have the same core values of virtue.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Didn't you write the "ding" posts? Can't we tell anything about you from your creations? I guess not. 

"it is not possible for us to know or be able to convey in words the true nature of God" So you admit that god is not provable. ABOUT FUCKING TIME!


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


A first cause is needed.  That cause is outside the realm of examination.  That cause is in the realm of philosophy.  You have to ask yourself what are the attributes of a first cause.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And therein lies the problem.  Because "the best you can do" is not scientific, and does not provide the objective evidence of "God" that us rational atheists require to change our position.  Because "the best you can do" is *presume* that God exists, and then tell us all about this imaginary God that you are incapable of even proving exists.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sure they are.  However it doesn't follow that everything that has the *potential* to heppen, will, and is, in fact, *predestined* to happen.  Blue flames have the *poitential* to com flying out of my ass.  Just how likely do you suppose the actuality of that happening is?  How "predestined"is that event?  Potential does not equate predestined.  It only equates *possible*.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I didn't ask for evidence.  I asked for *objective* evidence.  I also didn't ask for objective evidence about *the nature* of God.  I asked for objective evidence of *the existence* of God.  You keep wanting to skip right over that, and tell me what *kind* of God this God is that you haven't even proves existed in the first place.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why would I do that?  Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?  Are you seriously going to compare the examination of the creation of the universe and everything that has unfolded since that point to an examination of a random rock found in my backyard?  Have you not been paying attention to the discussion on the evolution of matter and what that has led to?   That's the rock, dude.  I am examining the rock.  Have you not been paying attention to how I established that it is impossible for the universe to be infinite?  That was me examining the rock.  Have you not been paying attention to the discussion on the first cause?   That was me examining the rock.  According to you I haven't done anything.  I think I've done a pretty good examination of the rock.  Especially considering that all you have done is try to keep evidence out of the record.  Which makes perfect sense since you are losing the debate that I have been having while you were filing motions to suppress.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


When are you going to quit pretending that what you are providing is evidence for what I asked for?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You crack me up.   I'm going to miss you the most.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You are free to believe that only because it did come to pass.  It did so in the only way possible for nature to know itself.  Life was preordained by the laws of nature.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, it's not.  You keep insisting that, and I keep reminding you of the new discoveries, and the theories that they have led to that make your statement untrue.  Now, understand, I am not saying that there *was* no begining.  After all, we can't know for certain, at this point, and all we can do is theorize.  However, you keep insising that a "first cause" is necessary, as a definitive declarative, and I have presented to you, repeatedly, the newtheory which disputes that contention.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


There you go again filing motions to suppress while I'm discussing the evidence.  The universe did have a beginning.  The start of which is outside the realm of science.  It is in the realm of philosophy. Everything after it started can be examined.  That examination shows that the universe has become self aware and that self awareness is the pinnacle of the evolution of that tiny, hot, dense space of matter.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


How is it not?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


What are the attributes of a first cause?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Then you're a philosopher, not a Catholic. And you just admitted again that god is unprovable. You might be an agnostic as well.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You asked: If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you? (post # 1,386)
Then, when I pointed out in post # 1,392 that that would only be true if you knew that the object you were observing had actually been created by WillReadMore, you insisted, in post # 1,410, "No,* I don't have to know it was created by WillReadmore* for it to be evidence. *All tangible items can be used as evidence*."  You, *literally*, insisted that any object you choose can be used to tell you about WiiReadMore.

Now, when I have challenged you to do just that, your response is, "Why would I do that?  Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?"  So which is it?  Can all tangible items be used as evidence for you to tell us about WillReadMore?  Or, do you have to actually know that an object was created by WillReadMore in order to tell us about him, based on observations about that object?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're going to miss me? Running away in shame?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's funny.  Because you *proclaim it so*, it is so.  You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


By definition, that nothing happened before it.  It implies that the universe *requires* a "beginning".  Except it doesn't.  *Might* it have had a beginning?  Sure.  However, you cannot state, categorically, that it *did* have a beginning.  As such, you cannot state, categorically, that there was a "First Cause".


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I would have to kill myself if I ever became a philosopher, those guys are worse than what you are, they actually believe their shit.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  When they eventually ban you.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You do realize that I am continuing on with my examination, right?  I don't need your approval or acceptance.  You want to keep evidence out of the record, I want to discuss what it means.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You see what you want to see. Look at that pretty flower. There must be a God. It's settled


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows.  The universe has become self aware.  What greater thing is there?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why would they ban me? And why should I care?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Regardless of the how's, we know it began in a dense hot state and expanded and cooled.  We know that this universe is not eternal.  We know that what started as that hot dense sphere eventually became self aware.  We can study exactly how that process unfolded.   We can note similarities between the stages and extrapolate from there.  The attribute of the first cause is that it must be eternal.   That is the starting point.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Because you are pretty much a troll.  It's just a matter of time.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


Not like that it won't be.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No,  there isn't evidence of that.  Just because *man* became self aware is,  in no way,  evidence that the *universe* is self aware.  In fact,  you are trying to ascribe to the universe something that science does not support - that the universe is a living organism,  let alone a self aware living organism. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nice non-sequitur.  "When my argument is expsed as irrational, I'm just going to keep right on going anyway, and pretend that my argument is rational,"


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The matter/energy that started this all 14 billion years ago is in you today.  It has only changed form since then.  Literally the material that was present at the birth of the universe (i.e. that hot dense space) is having a conversation about itself.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'll be here waiting by my agnostic (not an intellectual dead end) self. 

Or are you just sore that a mod rapped your knuckles and now you're reporting every post of mine. Ya, that'll help.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We all know that, but it still doesn't prove the god of the bible who you claim didn't make the world in 6 days.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No, it was the logical choice.  I don't need your approval, I don't need to convince you.  It would have been illogical to try as you are inconvincible.  You have already admitted that there is no evidence you will accept.  It would have been a waste of my time.  

I believe I have laid out a pretty compelling examination of the evidence.  I believe you have been busy filing motions to suppress.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I haven't reported you once.  You'll end up doing the work yourself.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's the problem!!!


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, it doesn't work like that, here, I'll 'splain it to you. If you/the bible put forth a theory, and science disproves pretty much everything in it, you have nothing to be agnostic about since the proof of said theory has already been debunked.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


So you are not really an agnostic, lol.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


A god/creator has not been proven to not be possible. The god of the bible has been debunked over and over again.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


So why are you still discussing it?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm trying to help you understand what an agnostic is. Civic duty and all that.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Your love for fellow man and altruism is off the chart.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're hilarious.  You insist that you don't need to convince me of anything,  then proceed to try to convince me that you nonscientific "evidence" is "compelling".

It's not,  just to be clear.  It is unoriginal claptrap attempting to pretend that theological fantasising is,  in fact,  scientific evidence. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Thanks, atheism is an intellectual dead end as well. (Have to stick to the topic not to be a troll, )


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Did the mod tell you that, lol.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't have a need to convince you.  I couldn't care less.  You on the other hand have already admitted that you seek out believers for the express purpose of ridiculing their beliefs.  Yes, I laid out my beliefs.  So what?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I've done that for myself already ... How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.




_*How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.*_


what is then the role of an Almighty when there is self determination (I've done that for myself already) that is then used to suit their 4th century political agenda ...

they are not theists, they are simply equivocal "religionists".


- the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


You mean you don't believe in free will?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You mean you don't believe in free will?










that's 4th century christianity, free will is a primary denial of your book - please refute the proof, your ad hominem attacks only verify the veracity of your depth -

just defending your awful religion is all that is needed for a forum.


so you believe you discovered the christian god ... are they speaking to you.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive?  Do you believe in free will?  Yes or no?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> - the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity


But you figured it out, right?  Please tell me how you did it.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


BreezeWood said:


> _*How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.*_





ding said:


> Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?




it is your inturpritation beuing discussed.

defend your religion, your ad hominem attack (_You mean you don't believe in free will?_) is not the subject and serves no purpose for a discussion board.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, at least your calling them beliefs now,  instead of trying to pretend hat they are in any way scientifically sound conclusions. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


It goes to your comment about the role of an Almighty when there is self determination.  We do have a choice.  That choice is called free will.  You either believe in it or you believe in fatalism. Your call.  You seem like a fatalistic person to me.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Good grief is your ego so large that you believe any response is a valid response?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > - the misinterpretation of God would preclude their discovery not their existence and is the real reason verification has not been accomplished by humanity
> ...


.


ding said:


> But you figured it out, right? Please tell me how you did it.




not by interpretation for the purpose to suit an awful, historically bankrupt 4th century religion.


my conclusion is nothing new, the genome of life and the detachment from the physiology that represents it and the physiology itself - I do not torture free thinking women of free Spirits that disagree with me in my understanding of nature and the reason for the Almighty as you ...

the Almighty has no reason to be verified till the injustice of the crucifixion of an innocent individual is prosecuted and for those people throughout history so punished likewise by your fallacious religion in their name and in defiance of a Spirits free will.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> It goes to your comment about the role of an Almighty when there is self determination. We do have a choice. That choice is called free will. You either believe in it or you believe in fatalism. Your call. You seem like a fatalistic person to me.




your response is ridiculous - your history is repression, there is no free will when you murder who disagree with you - defend your bankrupt religion there is no greater _intellectual dead end_ than 4th century christianity.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ya know,  Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question,  but I am curious. 

You have claimed,  on this very thread, that the entirety of the universe - up to,  and including the very evolution of our species,  and,  one must assume,  the development of the individuals within that species,  yourself,  and myself included - I'm curious how you reconcile that predestination with the concept of free will? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Yes, he does have a one track mind.  I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create.  There is no conflict that I am aware of.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why are we predestined? Nothing at the BB shows that.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


Czernobog said:


> Ya know, Breezewood isn't interested in pursuing your question, but I am curious.



not to an ad hominem accusation, bing knows perfectly well a free Spirit is an anathema to his religion and has been disdained since the 4th century.





ding said:


> I never claimed specific individuals were predestined, just merely beings that know and create.



that is the basis of 4th century christanity.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Are stars and planets alive? I think they are. If they have a hot core


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The Laws of Nature which came into existence when space and time were created.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That would be stellar evolution and no, they are not alive.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That was even more interesting than the 89th time you told that to me.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You'll forgive me if I don't see the distinction.  So, you are claiming that we, as a race, were predestined to exist, but that is as far as predestination goes?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


It's like you are a drone.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Really?  So, you think that stars are *animate beings*?  Because I'm pretty sure that science has determined, for instance, that the sun is an inanimate object.  I could be mistaken.  Can you direct me to any studies, or research that has determined otherwise?


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The distinction is at the evolutionary stage, where the next leap will logically be consciousness.  That's where I think it is going.  

Our race specifically?  I don't know judging from nature whoever does it will most likely have four limbs,two eyes, two nostrils, two ears, opposable thumbs and a large central nervous system.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 14, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Seems pretty animated to me. Has a pulse and one day will die.

And if life comes from stars they also give birth


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's not how it works.

The 7 Characteristics of Life


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Okay. Now we have moved solidly from the scientific,  into the metaphysical. As a rationalist,  while that is fun,  it has no practical purpose. 

We might as we'll talk about the giant space teapot orbiting the opposite side of the sun,  or the Great Invisible Spaghetti Monster.  There is just as much objective evidence to support those "hypothesis".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 14, 2017)

.


Czernobog said:


> We might as we'll talk about the giant space teapot orbiting the opposite side of the sun




as far as any resolutions that is what has been accomplished so far ...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 14, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> Czernobog said:
> ...


Lmfao[emoji23]

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 14, 2017)

ding said:


> Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?


"Was supposed to end"???

We have a very good idea what the future has in store for this universe.

But, that won't happen until a LONG long time after our planet no longer exists as a planet.


----------



## ding (Jan 14, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?
> ...


The planet will be just fine.


----------



## RWS (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



They were black and they did not believe in your god. Far from it.

Why are you using this example? Is it another random click? How can you claim that you are superior, when your knowledge is equivalent to kindergarten folklore about Santa Claus?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


But if you were at the BB, nothing would point to us coming out 13 billion years later.


----------



## RWS (Jan 15, 2017)

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand? 

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I know but at least you and cz are in agreement on something.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why? Suns do have a pulse, do give birth and do die.

What other things are not alive and do these things?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

RWS said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You mean other than the laws of nature and time?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And I am reconsidering my position because of it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm going to church today. 40 days after someone dies we get together. Let's see if I'm moved. Maybe the holy ghost will visit me. Maybe they'll have a healer there today. Or will they talk about a charity or that the churches operating costs are $375k a year?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

We have too many Greek churches half empty. Cut them in half and the pews be full


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

RWS said:


> And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.
> 
> Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?
> 
> ...


And Christian morals change with the times too. There once was one Baptist Church but then the church said you can't own black humans and thus was born the southern pabtist


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)




----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)




----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Or maybe you will at least become objective.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Maybe you could find someone like Fr. Cedric.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You couldn't tell what's going to happen by the first moments of the BB. You're looking at the end of the movie and saying that it's obvious by the first few frames what the end is. Nope. You fail.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


But we can.  You fail.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you can tell what kind of beings they'll be in 13 billion more years? Um... not a chance.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Yes, their consciousness will have evolved.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

RWS said:


> And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.
> 
> Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?
> 
> ...


That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs.  You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion.  You are dangerous.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nice guess. See? you have nothing to go on. Just like at the start of the BB.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

.


Mudda said:


> So you can tell what kind of beings they'll be in 13 billion more years? Um... not a chance





ding said:


> Yes, their consciousness will have evolved.




the genome was set at Singularity ... dimensionally.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.
> ...


.


ding said:


> That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.





and another admiringly pure ad hominem assaults ... from the 4th century christian mentality, have you preyed to your god today - it's Sunday. or readied you whip for a loathsome sinner.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Into what,  exactly? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> RWS said:
> 
> 
> > And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.
> ...


Neither of us has said that.  *You* keep accusing us of that,  and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid,  and wrong. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


How about the 6th stage of the morality progression?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


No.  RWS has implicitly and unconditionally stated to me that he would abolish religion if he could.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > RWS said:
> ...


This post was not directed at you.  It was directed to RWS.  Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No,  I don't.  I don't *need* to subordinate religion.  Religion is inherently self destructive.  I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution,  vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination,  and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all.  On.  It's.  Own. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case.  Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God?  Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents.  There seems to be a disconnect between the two.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We need to go looking for god. Maybe that's what science needs to tell religious people to get them to go along with space exploration


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Because I find religionists, like yourself, ridiculous, and worthy of making isn't because I feel the need to "subordinate religion".  It's just because you're ridiculous, and need to be mocked.  Nope.  I have always held the same position.  I do not need to do anyting.  Religionists will destroy themselves.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I still think its the greatest bullshit story ever invented but it makes a lot of people happy. Ignorance is bliss. Lol.

I'm going to start going once a month. My mom just died and my dad wants to go but won't go by himself.

Isn't one of the rules honor your mother and father? Even us atheists understand that.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The point is that what you are doing isn't science.  You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way.  There is no possibility of testing for god.  Thus it's outside of science.  End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory.  We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world.  So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science.  It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.  

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


Sort of like global warming?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Then stop lying about not wanting to subordinate religion.  Grow you a pair for God's sake.  In case you hadn't noticed  you got schooled.  You suck at trying to make me look ridiculous.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That would surely make you a good son.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


Really?  Sure, before the beginning is philosophy, but the rest? Can you be more specific about what isn't science?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Some people actually find happiness in their faith.  What should we tell those people?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

.


ding said:


> Some people actually find happiness in their faith. What should we tell those people?




stay away from bing.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


I would talk to them about how we can avoid seeing science and religion as being opposing forces.

Demanding that either side "prove" the other wrong is ludicrous.  Neither is equipped for that.  And, it is science that brings to us the truth of HOW things work in our natural world -  while avoiding invading the religious realm of "why" that science can not address.

And, we have a critical need to know how things work.  We can't continue to see the assault on science as not being harmful to human life, as not being destructive of our civilization.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


"Good for you.  Please quit indoctrinating children,"

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Sorry,  Will.  This is where you,  and I disagree.  "Why?" is a meaningless question.  Consider this.  If your child has an appendicitis,  do you want to sit around with a priest babbling on about *why* he got appendicitis,  instead of,  say,  the Jackson kid down the street,  or would you rather go to a doctor,  who can explain *how* he got appendicitis,  and how we are going to go about fixing it? 

*Why* may be a fun thought experiment,  but it,  ultimately serves no practical purpose. 
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


In case you didn't notice, no, I didn't.  You have spent this entire thread repeatedly making the same claim, and I have repeatedly demonstrated that your claim is inaccurate.  Not only are you ridiculous, but you are incapable of recognising when your premises are wrong.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


Nothing if they ain't hurting anyone. I keep my atheism to myself other than with like minded people and usmb.

We aren't a Christian nation. If you think we should be then I want to have a national discussion. I think you'll find more non believers than you think


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Climatology should be of no religious interest - other than that we should be concerned about those who are experiencing hardship and should be motivated to help in any reasonable way we can.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I secretly look at the people at church and wonder how they have all convinced themselves but from the brainwashing repeating months of faith I don't think it has crossed many of their minds that God might be made up. Impossible right? No it isn't impossible. In fact it seems very probable.

We are sheep and this is just one way they control us.

But honestly it's an industry and I hate to see any industry go away. It provides a service people want. I'm torn on religion because I don't think it's good for us to be that gullible orr faithful.

But I don't want to force the knowledge on a society I like it that atheism is coming naturally


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


True.  I think a lot of people self identify or reasons that are at least somewhat social.

For one example: Pew research finds that 75% of Catholics claim they look to their own conscience to answer questions of morality, when offered other choices (their church, the Bible, the Pope).

So, really, what is it that makes them Catholic?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Religion shouldn't concern itself with polluting our planet?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Your type always did try to force your will onto others.  Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I think you need to face the fact that you are a militant atheist.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Is the irony lost on you?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I was referring to the religious aspect of global warming and socialism.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I think that people who talk out of both sides of their face reap well deserved predictable surprises.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And, there it is.  The last refuge of the theocrats.  When they figure out that they are failing in their attempts to use the courts to legitimize their indoctination of children, they threaten violence.  And you call *me* militant.  I don't recall, even once, suggesting employing our "second amendment rights" to stop you from mentally abusing our children.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  I don't threaten violence.  I thank God I can defend myself from yours.  You're like a fucking nazi.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What's the worst he will do? Chop off your head or just passionately debate you?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I never threatened violence.  The only one here who brought up using guns is you.  You really should just admit that you are a militint religionist.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


He, on the other hand, is threatening gun violence to get his way.  But, I'm the militant one.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


There it is! Lol. You know the Nazis were Catholics right? Hitler used the church because it's a great vehicle for control.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The Nazi's were socialists.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


God you argue like a woman.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


His and your type, are cowards at heart, but like all cowards at heart, they are dictators when given the chance.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And now the ad homemins.  You're adorable.  You are militant, and a theocrat, but it is adorable how you think that you are rational.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm actually not that religious.  I just see people like you as a serious threat to our freedom and liberty.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I agree that "how" and "why" are one word responses that I think are the identifying idea, but not the full explanation.

I think the appendicitis thing would end up with science, because the solution has to do with "how" - how did it happen, how can we go about doing something about it, etc.  Science has answers for "how" when it comes to appendicitis - bacteria multiply, blah blah blah, 10-blade, please.

If a priest became involved, the issue wouldn't be how to solve the appy.  It would be about the comfort that is offered by understanding our position as humans, etc. - generally in the realm of why we are here.  For example, we're here as a trial period before heaven, which can involve serious challenge.  We don't know exactly why, because God acts in mysterious ways.  But, god is watching and there is a why even if only He knows.  And, other such religious messages - perhaps leading to comfort.

The priest may well pray with the patient for a positive outcome of the science "how" answer.  But, I wouldn't expect a priest to suggest limiting action to prayer only in this era - we know enough science to know what would happen next!


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes.  Yes.  I am a threat to your freedom, and liberty to mentally absue children.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  You are a threat to freedom and liberty because you seek equality via uniformity.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


So, to summerise, we're going to pray, and whent he surgery goes well, we will give God credit for saving our little boy, sending him the doctors, etc, but when he dies of complications, we will never consider that God didn't like us enough, and didn't like our preyers.  Instead, we'remgoing to blame the doctor, and consult a lawyer.
In other words, religion gives us an imaginary superman who gets the credit for every good thing that happens, but none of the blame for any of the bad.  Yeah...I get it now.  I understand how perfectly rational religion is.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's a lie, and an ad homenim.  You're really on a roll.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


A lot of socialist catholics in Europe.

Do you think only capitalists are Christians?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Of course you aren't. You aren't trying this hard to convince me and czernobog. You're trying to convince yourself. 

I'm not a coward for not walking up to people at church and telling them they are stupid. That would be rude.

And im not a coward when I let my dad talk about seeing his wife again. He insists there must be a God. I tried to explain why his evidence isn't evidence for a creator before my mom died but I don't argue it anymore. When you are dealing with death you give people their God.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> The Nazi's were socialists.




they were totalitarian which has its roots in your 4th century book.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


When I watch old movies about how America was founded. Killing Indians, enslaving black people, racism, exploiting the poor and immigrants one after another.

The more I think about it the more I agree we are a Christian nation.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> When I watch old movies about how America was founded. Killing Indians, enslaving black people, racism, exploiting the poor and immigrants one after another.
> 
> The more I think about it the more I agree we are a Christian nation.




I could be kind and not suggest there is an awfulness that comes from their book, the same that it does not reflect the events of antiquity but the dark motivations of the 4th century.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I wouldn't have expected for you to see it any different or the irony.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I think you should tell your dad how stupid you believe he is.  Don't just share that with us.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I love the history of after Jesus till now and before Jesus. The Greeks were getting along fine for thousands of years before Jesus then Paul goes to Greece and starts a cult. That's the start of the storytelling


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yep, there is a distribution.  The ones that are more emotional tend to be socialists.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  It's my belief.  It is based on reason and experience.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, the first half of that statement is true.  It is your belief.  But you wouldn't know reason, if it came up and suffocated you.  And it certainly doesn't change the fact that it is an ad hominem. Since your illogical arguments are failing,  you have resorted to attacking me,  instead of disputing my position.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I've tried. Lol. We've got in heated arguments. He keeps making the same bad arguments. The body and planet ecosystem is too perfect to not have been created by something. Who did it he asks, and I tell him we don't know is the most logical explanation.

He doesn't try to defend virgin births but he gives to the church so he has cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking and doesn't know it.

And that's why I keep it here. The internet has done wonders for freedom of mind and science and atheism. We realize we aren't crazy or alone. Czernobog has really owned you


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


*The Khmer Rouge abolished all religion *and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. These policies had been implemented in less severe forms for many years prior to the Khmer Rouge's taking power.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Now I know you are lying about your parents.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So,  what?  You thought I was a Cambodian totalitarian?  Here's a news flash for you.  I am just as disgusted with Cambodian totalitarianism,  the failed communist experiment of the USSR,  North Korea,  and China as you are.  Never once have I suggested that the government should be used to outlaw religion.  Only that religion should not be allowed,  as the Constitution guarantees,  to use the government,  and the public school system to indoctrinate children in religious dogma.  It is you who wants the government to sanction your religion,  not me. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't see a lot of difference.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And another ad hominem.  Why don't you just give up when your irrational arguments fail,  instead of personally attacking the people who have destroyed your arguments? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Of course you don't.  That's the problem.You religionists want your religion?  I don't have a problem with that.  Just keep it in your church where it belongs.  But, when you try to insert your irrational religious dogma into our schools, and try to use the government to lend the illusion of legitimacy to your religion, so that children are never given the opportunity to hear the rational evidence that disputes your religion, then I have a problem, and will use the Constitutional protection at my disposal to stop you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I thought we were all being honest here. Why would I lie? What part seemed like bs? I'm curious. I have challenged my dad but don't tell him I don't believe I just say "how can we be sure" but when he says there must be one too many times I snap and lay some science fact logic and reason on him.

I think my dad realizes it's wishful thinking but he chooses to wish it so who am I to tell him it's a scam. 

But then they asked him and everyone to leave the church something in the will. If he gives 10℅ that's $70k screw that.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Or prevent stem cell. Or remember Terry shivo? Or to tell a woman you have to have a baby she doesn't want. Science says nonsense. It's a very simple proceedure


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't believe your kind will be happy until religion is abolished.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I hope you don't mind if I disagree.  I really do believe people like you are dangerous.  I'm not sure which argument you believe you won or why, but if you want to see it that way, more power to you.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I can't wait for the day voters won't vote for religious politicians


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Really?  This was you being honest?  That's why you spend your time blogging about religion and God.  Because you are such an honest person?  Sorry, that's bullshit.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well...but you also believe in an invisible superman that is impooissible for science to ever discover is the architect of the universe, so, you know, we've already established that your beliefs are questionable.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Now that was honest.  And I can't wait for the day that moral relativists who practice normalization of deviance and have an external locus of control reap their predictable surprises.  That was honest too.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

.
is that the same thing as having a Free Spirit, abolishing religion ...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't care if you disagree, or not.  Personal attacks are personal attacks.  They don't bother me in the least.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Dude, go ahead and misstate my position.  I don't mind.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


He has made a lot of great arguments I read his posts and am greatly he explains it so well. Sorry you choose to disregard all of logic.

It comes down to you don't care you choose to believe. We get it. Or you want us to shut up when religion seems more political than I remember growing up


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You mean you didn't come here looking for a fight?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Really?  Which of his points were your favorite ones?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, I'll keep that in mind should I ever misstate your position.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> is that the same thing as having a Free Spirit, abolishing religion ...


No, it's more like having social morals for free.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


That would every time.  You do love your straw-men.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, I didn't.  I came here for a discussion, anda debate.  It's too bad you don't know the difference.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You don't believe I believe religion is bad for us?

Overall I prefer the truth.

Why do we talk about race politics and other taboos here? It's fun.

Some part of you must enjoy it too. Unless you are trying to convert us?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You troll religious forums to seek confrontations.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I have never enjoyed conversations with disingenuous people.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nope.  You believe that God created the universe.  You admit that science will never be able to establish the existence of theis God, because he is "supernatural".  So, no.  I didn't misstate your position even a little bit.  You believe in and invisible, supernatural superman, who was the architect of the physical universe.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> is that the same thing as having a Free Spirit, abolishing religion ...


Atheism must be allowed in a free market capitalism society with zero regulations.

Let the market decide


----------



## onefour1 (Jan 15, 2017)

Athiests stack the deck for their pseudo science of evolution and big bang.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're free to believe that.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Superman?


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


You can count on it.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Thank you.  I will.  Maybe one day, you will gather up the courage and honesty to admit it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What danger? What would happen if people stopped believing?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


. 


ding said:


> No, it's more like having social morals for free.









looks like there was a cost for her, paid to her by your kind.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


We'd end up like you.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Or your kind.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.
talk is cheap, what makes you think you found what was missing you're the one attacking everyone. have you always been that way ...


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I hope you don't mind if I see that the other way around.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Superman, God, A supernatural creature of incomprehensible power that created the universe, and for which there has never been, is not, nor ever will be any method to objectively demonstrate the existence.  You're problem isn't that I have misstated your position.  It is that using the name superman effectively mocks your irrational position, you know it, and you don't like having your irrational position mocked.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I hope you don't mind if I see that the other way around.




how could you ...

it is recorded history and clearly you have no repentance for your religions awfulness, just an appealing way for you to spend your "free" time. your proud to have taught her your opinion of a free Spirit.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why would I ever admit to something that isn't true?  I said you are free to believe what you stated, not that it was true.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yes, that's it exactly.  You condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.  That's what militant atheists do.  Thank you.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Of course you do.  Because you see the challenge to rationally defend your beliefs as an attack.  The fact that your beliefs are so irrational that they cannot stand against a challenge isn't our problem, it's yours.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You are not stupid to not know what you do.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No.  I see your mocking me as a weakness of your argument and a sign that you condemn respect for people who think differently than you.  That makes you dangerous.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I also mock grown adults who still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Bigfoot.  Yup.  I mock people who have irrational beliefs, and then try to convince everyone that they have rational proof of those irrational beliefs.

It's not people who believe in God that I mock.  It's irrational mutton-heads who pretend to be able to defend those beliefs rationally.  You want to hold onto your irratiojnal beliefs, that is your right, and just fine with me.  Just be honest that you know they are irrational, and you don't care.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I know exactly what I do.  Just because you want to believe that I am doing something I am not,  that is your problem, not mine.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


ummmm... that had nothing to do with your prior comment.  I see you attacking Christianity.  Like a militant atheist would.  You have never acknowledged what your belief system is, as near as I can tell you are a humanist, but I have no clue.  For some odd reason you have attached yourself to me.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Of course you do.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


This would be you rationalizing your behaviors.  That's a pretty chicken shit move.  Man up.  Own it.  Do you need for me to show you how to do it?  I'd be happy to oblige.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Absolutely, anyone who attempts to squelch honest debate is dangerous.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're free to see it that way.  You have a penchant for irrational views.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I agree, which is why I called you out for your ad hominems, when your irrational arguments failed.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


First of all you are a militant atheist.  You seek out believers to mock.  You do argue like a woman.  You took a statement about the 2nd Amendment and turned that into a threat.  That's arguing like a woman.  Give me a break.  Go find some other believer to mock because I'm going to punch back.  Or maybe that is what you are looking for.  Is that it?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 15, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I see you attacking Christianity.



only 4th century christianity, what it was before then and up to that time was entirely different than what they and you have made it - I have told you before, the religion of the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the true religion of antiquity. your sideshow is a vial fallacy.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  That's exactly what you just did.  That's chicken shit.


----------



## ding (Jan 15, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I don't live in the 4th century.  Are you a humanist?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.

you quote their bible, you are a 4th century christian, a fraud.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


So what Bible do you quote?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> First of all you are a militant atheist.


I don't know that this is true, but you are free to think so.


ding said:


> You seek out believers to mock.


At best, you are mistaken.  At worst, that is a lie.


ding said:


> You do argue like a woman.


That's an ad hominem, and not even worthy of response.


ding said:


> You took a statement about the 2nd Amendment and turned that into a threat.


Considering that the *only* thing the 2nd amendment deals with is guns, yeah, it *was* a threat.  You were making it clear that you will use gun violence to get your way, if the courts do not bow to your desire to indoctrinate, and mentally abuse children.


ding said:


> That's arguing like a woman.


Again with the ad hominem.


ding said:


> Give me a break.


No, I don't think I will give you a break.  That is what you are counting on.  You have spent your whole life repeating the same irrational arguments until anyone who disagrees with you just give up, so you havbe developped this irrational belief that, if you repeat your bullshit enough times, you will wear your opposition down to capitulation. So, no.  I will not give you a break.  You will either go away unsatisfied, or go away after admitting that you know your arguments are irrational, but you just don't care.  But, either way, *you* will go away.  I will not "give you a break".


ding said:


> Go find some other believer to mock because I'm going to punch back.


Punch away.  You have yet to land a blow.


ding said:


> Or maybe that is what you are looking for.  Is that it?


I told you what I'm looking for, and you called me a liar.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You are free to beieve that. You have demonstrated repeatedly that your beliefs are irrational. Please, demonstrate what other people who believe in God I hae mocked.  Not people who try to pretend their belief is rational, but just people who say, "I believe in God", and leave it at that.  When you find one, I will freely admit that I misrepresented myself.  You won't because, like all of your positions, this one is not based in reality.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Which of my beliefs are irrational?  That the universe had a beginning?  That what started it is beyond science?  That what happened after it can be studied?  That matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create?  That the universe became self aware?  That the potential for this existed at the beginning?  That it occurred as a result of the laws of nature?  That those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created?   That intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter?  That it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence?  That a 1st Cause is required?  That God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else?  These are not irrational beliefs.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > First of all you are a militant atheist.
> ...


You seek to subordinate religion.  You troll religious threads for the express purpose of mocking believers.  You condemn respect for people who believe in God.  That is a militant atheist.  If you don't know it is true if you are one, then I question your intelligence, honesty or both.  

You are acting like a woman again.  No, I did not make it clear that I would use gun violence to get my way.  I made a promise that I would use the 2nd Amendment to protect my 1st Amendment.  

My arguments are not irrational.  You are in denial.  You were so busy trying to keep evidence out that you failed to realize that I made my case on every point and you cannot dispute one of them.  So, I am at a loss to understand why you don't realize this.  I can only assume that is either because of your intelligence, honesty or both.  

The universe had a beginning.  What started it is beyond science.  What happened after it can be studied.  Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create.  The universe became self aware.  The potential for this existed at the beginning.  It occurred as a result of the laws of nature.  Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created.  Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter.  It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.  The 1st Cause is required.  The attribute of the first cause must be eternal.  God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. These are not irrational beliefs.  These are rational beliefs.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Happy and saving 10℅ of my income


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sorry your hypothesis deserves mocking.

It's like slapping a hysterical person


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Rather than argue or defend he's resorting to making us feel bad for attacking their illogical position


----------



## hobelim (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


 

Don't fall for that. The illogical positions that he has allowed to enter his mind to perpetuate are the root cause for the unspeakable suffering, persecution, torture, and death of billions of people over thousands of years...


 If he feels bad when you point out the great errors he has made in his speculations, you shouldn't. You are actually doing him a favor. Even ancient goat herders ridiculed the irrational beliefs of idolators without compunction. Have some faith...lol

He has every right to maintain them and I see that you respect that right but he has some audacity to expect you or anybody to respect his illogical beliefs that a three in one edible mangod poofed the universe into existence and then 13 billion years later impregnated a 14 year old virgin to father himself without a human father so that he could become fully human and fully God....

The flesh/teaching of unclean creatures that do not ruminate, think deeply,  really does defile and contaminate the mind.... just like it says so in the fairy tale. The evidence is verifiable and overwhelming.

There, now you have something mentioned in the bible that you can see with your own eyes and believe.....


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What is illogical?  The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. These are not illogical beliefs. These are logical beliefs.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

hobelim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Which beliefs are illogical?  The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Why are you arguing against God?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I don't need to argue or defend.  There is nothing you will accept.  It is not possible for you to feel bad.  You would need a conscience for that.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Reallly?  Go ahead and mock it.  You would just be mocking yourself.  The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Go ahead... mock it, Einstein.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Happier and saving 34%.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


According to you, ignorance = god

As in, you don't know how the universe started, so god is as good an answer as anything, so you say. Sheesh, those ultra low standards again.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Was that the best you could do at mocking it?  Try again....

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No first cause, no beginning and no end.  Sorry epic fail.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you save 34% and give 10% to a church?  Or do you not give shit to a church.  I thought so.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I hope your level of intelligence isn't the pinnacle.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Where was the mocking of my illogical beliefs?  Good Lord, you didn't even touch 3/4 of them and the only two you did touch on all you did was a categorical denial without any justification for your belief whatsoever.  

Can you prove that the universe did not have a beginning?  Can you prove that the universe does not have an ending?  Can you prove that no first cause is needed?

I'd really like the chance to mock your beliefs.  Until then I guess I will mock your lack of basis for beliefs.  Which proves that atheism is an intellectual dead end.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


And that is a concern of yours why?  Let's say I give more than 10% to charities.  Is that enough for you?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


In some ways yes.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You can tell us you make and give as much as you want.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I think CZERNOBOG is.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Which ways?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You're attributing the first cause to an invisible being for which you have no proof. And it "must be eternal"? You've proven no such thing. "God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else" unproven, equals very low standards.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yes, just like you can tell us save as much as you want.  What's your point?  That we are on an honor system?  Yes.  It would seem to be the case.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He isn't.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I believe your high priest is smarter than you.  That's how he gets 10% of your pay.  So you might make 10% more than I do but we are even.  LOL.

Oh, and you are just making another bad argument.  #13

Why there is no god

*Smart person X believes in god or ‘You are not qualified’.*
Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.

Invisible pink unicorns exist. You’re not an expert in them, so you can’t say they don’t.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You aren't objective on this.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  I am attributing it to a supernatural being.  I have no idea what His nature is.  Our tiny little talking monkey brains can not comprehend that.  The closest I can come to is a mind.  Be that as it may, You have no evidence to say its not.  You have no argument against anything else I have written and you have no basis for your beliefs.  Thus proving the title of the OP, that atheism is an intellectual dead end.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


That's why I'm not an atheist, they are as deluded as you are. You both have no proof for your claims.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Since you declare agnosticism more _logical_, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is _more_ logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



_“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”_ – Carl Sagan


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


He might be more intelligent than I am.  Who said I gave 10% to him anyway?  Does it give you comfort to know that you are making the exact same argument that Karl Marx made?

The question you still have not answered is do YOU believe YOU are are more intelligent than me?

What bad argument am I making?  It seems that you are having to resort to copy and pasting.  Can you explain my bad argument to me in your own words?  Or is that beyond your level of intelligence to do so?  Here is my argument in my own words....  The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.  What did I get wrong, Einstein?

I have not argued against the existence of invisible pink unicorns.  Maybe they do exist.  What does that have to do with...  The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

Yes, the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.  Now tell me what is irrational about... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

Because if you can then I submit to you that you are compartmentalizing YOUR  world-views and models from one another, in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape YOUR discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I believe I am as he has not proven that my beliefs are irrational...  The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.  Can you tell me what was rational and what was irrational and why?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that.  You are not agnostic.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way.  You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies.  You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it.  Not that you don't know it.  You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


God is just as good a guess as anything else yes I agree.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




God is not just as good an answer as anything else when your beliefs about an edible triune mangod are themselves fundamentally illogical and do not correspond to any real living being ever in existence...

You might as well be claiming that a three headed leprechaun did it.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


But I'm not.  I'm claiming God did and you are arguing with me about it rather than those who would mock you for your belief.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


There's no such thing.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's funny because you haven't been acting like it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You are sure there is a god and you are sure there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.  You just aren't smart bra.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


A guess.  Not a theory.  Maybe a hypothesis.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure I am smarter than you, and I'm pretty sure there is a Creator and I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.  I have a basis / reason for having these beliefs and they are based upon observation and logic  I am always open to new information, but since I have given these subjects considerably more thought than most, I don't usually find positions I have not already evaluated and considered.  Seems smart enough to me.  What do you think?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You haven't been acting like that either.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> So what Bible do you quote?




the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


And where has it been recorded.  What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Which of my beliefs are irrational?  That the universe had a beginning?


Yes.  When you hold dogmatically to the position that the universe *must* have had a beginning, that is irrational, particularly when you have been presented, repeatedly, with a perfectly sound theory of the origin of the universe that required no such beginning point.


ding said:


> That what started it is beyond science?


Yes.  That is irrational.  It *presumes* that an outside force started the universe, like one jump starts a car, with absolutely no evidence.  Any belief for which there is no rational evidence is, by definition, irrational.


ding said:


> That what happened after it can be studied?


No.  That's not irrational.


ding said:


> That the universe became self aware?


Yes, that is quite irrational.  "The Universe" is an vast collection inanimate objects.  It is not alive.  It has no consciousness.  It cannot *become* "self-aware"


ding said:


> That intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter?


That is not only irrational, but scientifically unsound.  *Matter* neither evolves, nor has consciousness, let alone intelligence.  Does a rock have intelligence?  Does a grain of sand have intelligence?  No.  To suggest that matter has intelligence is the *pinnacle* of irrational thinking.


ding said:


> That a 1st Cause is required?


Yes.  That is irrational.  First, you can see my point to your first irrational claim.  Second, without resorting to special pleading (a logical fallacy) *every* cause requires a preceding cause.  When a belief requires a logical fallacy to make it work, it is, by definition, illogical, and therefore, irrational.

So, yes.  You hold to a plethora of irrational beliefs.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, you're free to question anything you like.



ding said:


> You are acting like a woman again.  No, I did not make it clear that I would use gun violence to get my way.  I made a promise that I would use the 2nd Amendment to protect my 1st Amendment.


A 1st Amendment that is not in jeopardy, but that you repeatedly support denying to anyone who is not a religionist, and then alludedc to the second amendment as a tool to allow you to keep denying those 1st amendment rights to others.  So, yes, it was gun violence that you threatened.  And "acting like a woman" isn't botheri g me, in case you didn't notice.  It is just further evidence of how irrational, and illogical you are.



ding said:


> My arguments are not irrational.  You are in denial.  You were so busy trying to keep evidence out that you failed to realize that I made my case on every point and you cannot dispute one of them.  So, I am at a loss to understand why you don't realize this.  I can only assume that is either because of your intelligence, honesty or both.


The only one in denial is *you*.  Not only can I dispute allof your points, I *did* dispute them, quite effectively.  You simply keep making the same points, even after they have been expoosed as irrational.  That is your problem, not mine.



ding said:


> The universe had a beginning.  What started it is beyond science.  What happened after it can be studied.  Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create.  The universe became self aware.  The potential for this existed at the beginning.  It occurred as a result of the laws of nature.  Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created.  Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter.  It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.  The 1st Cause is required.  The attribute of the first cause must be eternal.  God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. These are not irrational beliefs.  These are rational beliefs.


This is my point about you being in denial. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that the universe was not required to have a beginning, and that there is a perfectly sound theory avialable that completely dismantles your "The universe had a beginning" claim.  There is no evidence that anything "started" the universe.  Matter does not evolve; that is an incorrect use of that word.  Matter does not have intelligence.  The universe is not even intelligent, let alone self-aware.  The very concept of a "1st Cause" requires the use of the logical fallacy of "special pleading" in order to work. Claiming that the "first cause is eternal" *is* special pleading.  Since no other thing in the universe is eternal, you are arguing that this mythical "first cause" is "special".  That is a textbook case of special pleading logical fallacy.  Any argument that requires the use of a logical fallacy in order to make it work is irrational, and can be ignored.

A number of those beliefs, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, are irrational, leading to your irrational belief in a God.

As I have said, repeatedly, I don't care if you want to believe in your mythnical God; just quit trying to pretend that it can be rationally defended, and quit trying to use the government to legitemise your irrational beliefs, and our public school systems to indoctrinate our children into your irrational religion.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?





> "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".




the above is a 4th century forgery used to instill fear - there are no etchings in stone or records from the time of the events in antiquity for any of the proclamations in your book.


_*Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani  *_


the above is the spoken religion and the epitaph your book knowingly disguises. a commemoration lost to future generations in pursuit of the Triumph of Good vs Evil - you represent a hollow, dead end of misery and deciet ...






bing the inquisitor


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Which of my beliefs are irrational?  That the universe had a beginning?





Czernobog said:


> Yes.  When you hold dogmatically to the position that the universe *must* have had a beginning, that is irrational, particularly when you have been presented, repeatedly, with a perfectly sound their of the origin of the universe that required no such beginning point.



That is because every single model has the universe in a hot dense state and expanding and cooling.  Every single one.  The cyclic models - all but one - violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, have major flaws and do not work.  The lone exception of the cyclic models is not really a cyclic model as it has increasing time between cycles such that it to had a beginning.  So no matter how you slice the pie, you can't help but getting back to an early universe which is hot and dense and then expands and cools.  You cannot get around that the universe had a beginning and requires a first cause of which that attribute must be something that is eternal.

So it seems that it is not my belief that the universe had a beginning which is irrational.  It is because I don't agree with you that I am irrational.  Can you tell me how my belief that the universe had a beginning is irrational?  I'll wait.  You can't do it.  You lose.



ding said:


> That what started it is beyond science?





Czernobog said:


> Yes.  That is irrational.  It *presumes* that an outside force started the universe, like one jump starts a car, with absolutely no evidence.  Any belief for which there is no rational evidence is, by definition, irrational.



First of all it is not irrational to state that what started it is beyond science.  Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states,  "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. 

So clearly if an expert in experimental physics, a Nobel Laureate no less, believes that what happened before the big bang is unknowable by science and is in the realm of philosophy, it is not irrational to believe that what started it is beyond science, now is it?  Better yet, you tell me, Einstein, how can science know what happened a billion of a trillionth of a second before space and time were created when all the equations yield infinities?  I'll wait.

Secondly, it does not presumes that an outside force started the universe.  It merely states that what happened a billion of a trillionth of a second before space and time were created is unknowable.  Therefore, would you care to try again to explain how stating  "that what started it is beyond science" is irrational?  You can't.  Because it is not.  You lose again.



ding said:


> That what happened after it can be studied?





Czernobog said:


> No.  That's not irrational.



Thank you.  Neither were the others, as I have just proved.



ding said:


> That the universe became self aware?





Czernobog said:


> Yes, that is quite irrational.  "The Universe" is an vast collection inanimate objects.  It is not alive.  It has no consciousness.  It cannot *become* "self-aware"



The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created.  You and I are quite literally a part of the universe.  We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of.  The universe is quite literally discussing itself.  Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy?  Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now?  Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware.  How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?


Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.



ding said:


> That intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter?





Czernobog said:


> That is not only irrational, but scientifically unsound.  *Matter* neither evolves, nor has consciousness, let alone intelligence.  Does a rock have intelligence?  Does a grain of sand have intelligence?  No.  To suggest that matter has intelligence is the *pinnacle* of irrational thinking.



Of course matter evolved.  Our universe started as a hot dense sphere of nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.  If it did not evolve we would still be there.  The initial evolutionary phase of matter is called cosmic evolution where subatomic particles rapidly formed hydrogen and helium.  This is evolution of matter from a less mature state to a more mature state; from a less advanced state to a more advanced state.  The next phase of evolution of matter was stellar evolution.  Where stellar structures were created from clouds of hydrogen and helium gas.  This is evolution of matter from a less mature state to a more mature state.  The next phase of evolution of matter was chemical evolution.  Where supernovas created all the chemical elements and compounds in the universe.  This is evolution of matter from a less mature state to a more mature state; from a less advanced state to a more advanced state.  The next phase in evolution of matter is life which began as single cells and evolved into all life that we know of today.  Eventually matter evolved until beings that know and create arose, thus the universe became self aware of itself through us.  Tell what I have gotten wrong here?   Tell me what was irrational?  Is the truth offensive to your sensibilities?

Can you name anything that was created by the universe and the laws of nature that is more complex than intelligence?  I can't because there isn't.   Can you name anything that was created by the universe and the laws of nature that required more steps in it's evolution from that hot dense state before expansion?   I can't because there isn't.   So tell me, how is it irrational to say that intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter if you can't tell me one thing that is more complex or took more steps in arriving at?  Because I would say you are irrational if you can't and still believe that intelligence is not the pinnacle of the evolution of matter.  You lose again.



ding said:


> That a 1st Cause is required?





Czernobog said:


> Yes.  That is irrational.  First, you can see my point to your first irrational claim.  Second, without resorting to special pleading (a logical fallacy) *every* cause requires a preceding cause.  When a belief requires a logical fallacy to make it work, it is, by definition, illogical, and therefore, irrational.
> 
> So, yes.  You hold to a plethora of irrational beliefs.



The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe.  It is impossible for the process to be infinitely cyclical.  It requires a beginning.  Therefore a first cause is required which is not subject to the limitation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Hence, something which is eternal and not subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  What is irrational is your belief that the universe can be infinite.  It can't.  Eventually there would be no usable energy left in the cyclical universe.  What is also irrational is that your belief that there does not need to be a first cause for a universe that did have a beginning.  And finally, what is irrational is your explanation which was devoid of scientific principles of our physical laws that govern our universe.  You lose again.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Well no one's going to join your boring club.  I've seen the insides of churches.  A lot of fun.  And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him.  Not even close.  You sit on the fence and watch the match.  You shouldn't even be commenting.  You have no opinion.  Just watch the adults speak.  You know who else is agnostic about things?





Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god?  It's so fucking stupid.  But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist.  Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up.  I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


That's my point.  You have not rejected both sides equally.  I even gave you a way to do it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA.  They've produced theories, backed by empirical evidence including imaging studies of the brain at work that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around. 

Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You made it up

Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion. Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies at the National Institutes of Health showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior — our ability to negotiate relationships with others — were engaged.

Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

It's an easy jump to say, conversing with the dead or to conjuring gods and praying to them.

Morality, which some see as imposed by gods or religion on savage humans, science sees as yet another adaptive strategy handed down to us by natural selection.

Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom notes that "it is often beneficial for humans to work together … which means it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals." In groundbreaking research, he and his team found that infants in their first year of life demonstrate aspects of an innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad, even fair and unfair. When shown a puppet climbing a mountain, either helped or hindered by a second puppet, the babies oriented toward the helpful puppet. They were able to make an evaluative social judgment, in a sense a moral response.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



I'm explaining how you made it up.  Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Which of my beliefs are irrational?  That the universe had a beginning?
> ...



The better we understand human psychology and neurology, the more we will uncover the underpinnings of religion. Some of them push us toward a belief in gods and make departing from it extraordinarily difficult. But it is possible.

We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind's greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.

Imagine that.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



So wrong but in America you are free to be wrong.

We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind's greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.

Imagine that.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Before you can know who God is, you have to first actually believe that there is a higher power than man.  I for one do not believe that that is a tall order.  Seems there is something greater than man out there.  We know for a fact that at a minimum our level of intelligence exists.  Is it really a leap to believe that there is something greater than that out there.  The more I study science, the more I don't see how it could be any other way.  Only then should you make an attempt at the who.  You really shouldn't mix those until you do, it will only confuse you and lead you to accepting Czernobog's BS arguments which will only make you look foolish when you trot them out and get beat down.  But if you do decide to take that small step, I suggest Huston Smith's Illustrated World Religions which gives a fair accounting of all the major religions.  They have a lot more in common than you think.  Of course the smart money is that this is all fun and games and you couldn't give a rat's ass.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


There's another problem, you can't say there are equal odds unless you can actually make a case for those odds.  You have done a magnificent job shooting down all of the cases for God, but you don't have a path to the God exists's case.  You see, the problem you have with statistics is that if you say there are equal chances of each outcome and you ran a monte carlo simulation you would actually get nearly half outcomes being that there is a God.  So, you can't use those odds because you have not proven those odds.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Yes it's very easy to fill in the blank for a question you will never be able to answer.  That's why I am smarter than you.  The answer is we just don't know.  

And I did believe in God.  I was thinking about this in church yesterday.  Lots of time to think when you are bored.  But a few years ago I prayed to God I'd join the church if I got this job.  I got the job and joined the church.  Then the job didn't work out.  It was a horrible job.  Thanks for nothing God.

Then I became an atheist and got a great job.  maybe because i'm smarter now.  Lots of atheists here.  Absolutely no holy rollers.  Where do they even exist in real life?  

See, you religious nuts are the nuts here on USMB.  You guys keep your mouths shut in person but come here and talk crazy shit.  You don't want to be laughed at so you do keep your crazy thoughts in your home and church.  YOU are the cowards.  Come evangelicize around me and I'll politely mock you while I smile and nod.  But I will challenge you in person.  Fact is very few theists wear their religion on their sleeves.  You guys are basically in the closet.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Yea mudda, make your case for how a god is an equally probable outcome.  Ding even realizes you are full of shit. 

Make your case for either side so we at least know you understand what we are discussing here.

Why do you believe a god has a 50 50 chance?

I believe you are going to prove agnostics are retards.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Or does it prove the opposite?   If we were really made to worship God, wouldn't we expect to get some sort of advantages through nature?  Wouldn't you expect there to be some feedback rewarding good behaviors and suffering the consequences of bad behaviors?  And wouldn't we expect to see some sort of positive progression in the one's who were doing things right?  Yep, there's science for all that.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



See Czernbog keeps telling you to stop doing this.  You say, "If we were really made to worship God".  You haven't even established that this thing exists.  Now you have graduated to telling us we were made to worship it.  This is getting weird.  LOL.  And now you are saying it programmed us to worship it.  But then he made a glitch with me, right?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created.  You and I are quite literally a part of the universe.  We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of.  The universe is quite literally discussing itself.  Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy?  Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now?  Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware.  How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?
> 
> 
> Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.
> ...


Okay.  I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them.  You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan.  The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the *poetry* of his statement, which had nothing to do with the *science* that he presented.  The oceans are teeming with fish.  Is the ocean, itself, "alive"?  No.  The ocean is simply H2O.  That's it.  It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules.  It is not alive.  It is not conscious.  it has no intelligence.  It is just water.  To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst.  We are not representative of the universe as a whole.  hell, we are not even representative of our *solar system as a whole*.  We are just one tiny little speck, existing in one insignificant little corner, of the vast, lifeless, *mostly empty* exance of space.  *WE* are self-aware, because we are alive, andhave developped our intelligence to the point of self-awareness,  However, we are not the universe.  We simply reside in it.  The universe in which we reside, is cold, lifeless, and void of consciousness, let alone self awareness.  You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision.  Do you want to debate rational scientific study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy.  Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


But you can answer it.  It's not like you can't test it.  So do yourself a favor and just call it what it is.  A bullshit excuse.  In fact, its not even that good because you did answer it.  When all you have ever done is argue against it, there is no way in hell you can claim you didn't know.  

If that is how you view prayer, you suck at it.  You think bargaining is prayer?  You think you have something He wants?  Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.  It's always your fault, and He's going to keep bringing you back to it because He's got nothing better to do.  I don't know what crazy talk you are talking about.  It's like you have a movie playing in your head or something.  If you are going to accuse me of something is it too much to ask that you do so with some specificity?  

I don't mind you laughing at me.  I am happy to condescend to you.  I hope you take my barbs as well too.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.


Ya know.  You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative.  You get that is not how this works, right?  Atheists don't *have to prove anything*.  All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion.  You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim.  I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism.  Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period.  Full stop.  It makes no assertions about possibilities.  The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, *anything*, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible.  Thus, the existence of God is a *possiblity*.  Atheists make no claims about the possible.  Only about the observable, and proven.  There.  is.  No.  God.  Period.  Full stop.

Now.  Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's how it works, dude.  I put forth the hypothesis and then prove it.  It turns out that believing in God has advantages.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.



And there is the irrationality of religion.  "It's never their fault". Period.  Full stop.  For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit.  It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit.  Go ahead, and pick a positive event.  I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it".  However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens.  Not.  One, because...It's.  Never.  Their.  Fault.  period.  Full stop.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created.  You and I are quite literally a part of the universe.  We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of.  The universe is quite literally discussing itself.  Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy?  Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now?  Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware.  How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?
> ...


Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did.  Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say?  How's your mocking going now?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.
> ...


This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God?  2. Who is God?.  You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  They are independent questions.  You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman.  You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt.  You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created.  You and I are quite literally a part of the universe.  We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of.  The universe is quite literally discussing itself.  Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy?  Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now?  Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware.  How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?
> ...


You are not going to take my points one at a time.  You are done.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


*I'm not denying that. *That has nothing to do with your statement.  You know what?  We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one.  I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe".  So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Prove it.  Explain to me how God is possible.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Made up what?  You responded to the wrong thread.  Are you talking about if we were really made to worship God, would expect to get some sort of advantages through nature?   I didn't make that up.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies.


To argue that it is Darwinian and not beneficial to natural selection is at odds with Darwin himself.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

.


ding said:


> The cyclic models - all but one - violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, have major flaws and do not work. The lone exception of the cyclic models is not really a cyclic model as it has increasing time between cycles such that it to had a beginning.




you ignore the fact all matter is traveling on a trajectory of a finite angle and will in unison return to their origin at the same time and recompress to initiate a new moment of Singularity, BB is cyclical.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence.  Since that time it has only changed form.  Yes.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Which is why I am examining what He created.  I did so and then made my case.  The dots have been connected.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...


No.  I am just ignoring you until your manners improve.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

.


sealybobo said:


> Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA. They've produced theories, backed by empirical evidence including imaging studies of the brain at work that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.










the Spirit is not within the CNS (central nervous system) - the physiology is and its origin is not from a physical location, either. Flora has no neurons and as with all beings is Spiritually endowed. humans have created an answer without an expatiation that someday will be known or they will become extinct.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Good!  Something we can agree on.  So, you would agree that everything that exists, is made up of the same molecular material that humanity is, yes?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Then use it. 

When wondering how the universe got its start, it is logical not to rule an external god/person/... without any evidence. Ex: Our universe could an experiment in someone's lab for all we know. But you've ruled out ALL external possibilities. Which of course is not logical without proof.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I would agree that it all came from the exact same source, yes.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's why I'm agnostic, until something can be proven, nobody has anything. But yes, you both have an equal chance of being wrong, because on this question, there's either a god or there is, a 50/50 proposition.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


God has a 50/50 chance of existing because well, he either is or isn't, a 50/50 proposition. Seems pretty simple really.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Great so if you really believe there is a 50% chance of God existing then just tell me what that looks like.  Make an argument for it.  I'll wait.  I know you can't.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Fantastic.  Then I eagerly await your link to the scientific studies, and the measurements of the self awareness of the rock in your front yard.  After all, since it is your contention that, because we all came from the same "cosmic stuff", that, in the words of Carl Sagan, "We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.", by which he clearly meant that all of the universe is self-aware.  Since all of the universe is self aware, I will eagerly await your scientific measurements of the self awares of *a rock*.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.
> ...


If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic. 
If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I can't tell you what something that hasn't been proven to exist looks like. If god exists, it could look like any number of things, again, until proven otherwise.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You see?  You want your cake, and eat it, too.  You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively.  But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I don't claim the rock is self aware.  I claim that you and I are.  It is like any refining process.  Just because I start with a barrel of oil does not mean I will get a barrel of gasoline.  In fact, I can't think of any refining process where you don't have byproducts. 

So are you going to seriously argue that since all of the universe does not have self awareness that none of the universe has self awareness? 

Really?  Is that your final answer?  Would you like me to mock that now or later?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't.  You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome.  It doesn't work like that.  You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs.  Which I will summarize again for posterity.

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. These are not irrational beliefs. These are rational beliefs.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  I'm atheist.  Guess what?  I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist.  I am not "agnostic" about their existence.  I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.  


Mudda said:


> If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.


No, I don't.  A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative".  It is the onus of theists to prove their *positive assqertion*.  you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter.  One cannot prove a negative.  It is my responsiblity to prove that you *did* rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion.  It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until *proven* guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until *proven* otherwise.  And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Except you, and I are *not* the universe.  We are simply two beings who happen to reside *within the universe. *Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No, we are 7 billion beings who have satisfied the condition of the universe becoming aware of itself.  It only takes one.  You are quick to reject science when it does not suit your purpose.  See the last line in my signature.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?



Atheism really is an intellectual dead end.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Then you're making a claim that you can't back up. On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god... 
Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's not about knowing the outcome.  It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator.  Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want.  "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply *presume a creator exists.* Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.



ding said:


> The universe had a beginning.


I am going to stop you right there.  You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, *and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics*.  So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


ding said:


> No. I am just ignoring you until your manners improve.






BreezeWood said:


> you ignore the fact all matter is traveling on a trajectory of a finite angle and will in unison return to their origin at the same time and recompress to initiate a new moment of Singularity, BB is cyclical.




the Boomerang Theory answers your question irregardless your thin disposition - look it up, you won't find it in this case it is my own so you may age without ever knowing ...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I.  Don't.  Need to back it up.  The negative assertion is *the default position*.  Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around.  "I did not rape my your daughter,"  That is not a claim that I have to "back up".  It is *assumed* to be the correct, accurate claim, until such evidence is presented to prove otherwise.


Mudda said:


> On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...


Of course it is.  First, there is no evidence that it was made.  Second, by placing the "maker" external to the universe, and independent of the physical laws of the universe, you have effectively created a condition for the existence of a creator that makes the claim immune to any logical argument, as there is no way that it can be tested.  An untested theory is *always* considered questionable, and unsatisfactory.


Mudda said:


> Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.


No it's not.  No one disputes that gravity existed before its discovery, however, the premnise was that gravity does not exist, until evidence proved otherwise.  This does not mean that it didn't exist, only that its existence was not accepted as a scientifically viable explanation for why things fall to the Earth, until it was tested, and proven accurate.

Once "God exists" is tested,. and proven accurate, we atheists, will happily revise our postions.  That doesn't make us agnostics.  It makes us atheists.  You, again, suffer the misconception that atheists are dogmatic, and absolute in their position, "God does not exist".  We're not.  We're just awaiting the evidence to prove us wrong.

Agnostics fall into two categories:

1 - Cowards who are so timid about their own beliefs that they do not want to offend either side, so they are unwilling to commit to their positions, or

2 - Arrogant atheists, who think that by telling both sides to philosophically fuck off, they have ganined sonme intellectual superiority over everyone else.

I don't care which kind of agnostic you are, the end resul is the same - you don't believe in this God nonsense any more than I do.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?
> ...



.


ding said:


> Atheism really is an intellectual dead end.




then you agree Flora is vibrant ...

the OP has not made their case and neither have you.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


If you say that you didn't rape my daughter then you'd need an alibi to back up your statement. 

Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No I don't.  If you can't prove that I raped your daughter, the presumtion is that I didn't rape your daughter.  Period.  Full stop.  I am not required to do anything other than sit there, and watch you fail to prove your claim.  You don't get to say, "Well, we don't know where he was on the night in question, so that means he did it,"  Welll...I mean you *can* do that.  You can make that the entirety of your case.  Just don't be surprised when I am acquitted.



Mudda said:


> Saying that there is nothing outside this universe, like other universes, is not a statement that you can say for sure. Until there is proof of how the universe was created, I don't discount anything, you do.


I discount anything for which there is no evidence, until such time as there *is* evidence.  You are timid, and uncertain, so you're response to any suggestion that has not been tested is, "Welll...maybe...?"

I am more confident in myself, and in science.  If a thing exists, there will be evidence.  Until there is, I maintain it does not exist.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I believe time existed before our universe but that's unknowable and i believe space stretches infinitely outward far beyond our universe


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I'm not so sure about time,  as time is rather a human construct to describe the affect on human perception of the period between cause and effect. Would that period exist without human perception?  Sure.  But the measurement is purely a human construct. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I know but you can't put God in a box. Look ahead any direction. God can and is everywhere you look in every direction and you can not tell God he went too far. You can always keep going.

I think we are one bubble in a lava lamp only an infinite sea of lava lamps. Bubbles pop, merge and are born every second. Google's of them. 

You see how small a Tardigrade is to us. Then you see how small our planet is, or our sun compared to other sun's. And there are how many galaxies in our universe?

We just discovered a 9th planet in our solar system. We don't know shit. I'm sure our universe is just one. We are nano nothing.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You're claiming out of nowhere that you didn't rape my daughter, which would automatically seems suspicious and would warrant a closer look at you by the cops.

Again, claiming that things do not exist because man hasn't discovered them yet is like saying, just before Columbus set sail, that there was nothing to find. Well, you could say that, but you'd be wrong, whether Columbus ever sets sail or not.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Sorry for the gross rambling here, but ...

I have a very different idea of what agnosticism means to me.

First, honestly not knowing can't be a sign of arrogance.  And, even you point out that we don't have a way of knowing - or at least we don't have a way of proving.  We only have the null hypothesis, but that doesn't mean we know.

The problem with "timid" is that it misses where the strength is being applied.

The problem here is that if we can't prove one way or the other whether God exists we need get the heck off of that issue and move on to how we are going to live together as a society with different beliefs.  We're not going to write some posts here and kill Christianity, Islam AND Judaism.  And, butting heads is NOT how we make progress with humans.  So, not butting heads isn't a matter of "timid".

So, where to apply the pressure?

The conversation needs to turn toward what comes after we recognize that we're not going to kill religion - at least not in the next few centuries.

But, I AM ready to be an evangelist, just not one selling that God is a ridiculous concept.  

What I care about is that we come to understand the importance and methods of incorporating science in our public policy decision making.

I don't need anyone to believe god is dead in order to make progress on that.

One of the very first steps in that is to demonstrate that religion and science are NOT opposing forces.  Even the Pope points out that science and religion are different "realms".  We need to see how that works.

I think there is a distance to go on this, as I'm sure you will agree that a lot of people don't even know what science IS.

Today, we have congressmen who actively oppose science!!  They back the anti-vaccination movement.  They support homeopathy.  The consider colleges and universities the hot bed of evil - literally!!

Today we have a president elect who very clearly bases decisions  in the moment, without any thought of creating a long term policy direction or consulting experts.

Today we have a public that would seemingly have no idea of how to detect whether what they are reading is true.

We aren't going to do well as a nation under these circumstances.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


By all means go look for god. Tell us when you get there


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Wh


Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Why would they be gods?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

That's wh


WillReadmore said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


 That's why we are preaching rational thought over superstitious.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Questionable and unsatisfactory is the evidence for god. If they would tell us why they believe despite the fact their arguments have holes in them I'd like to hear it.

I have gotten theists to admit they believe because they want to believe or the classic "you just have to have faith". Sorry it doesn't work that way


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


You're missing the point.  The point is that negative assertions do not require proof.  one is not required to prove a negative.  Flip that around.  If one were to make the assertion that I raped your daughter, I am required to do nothing, but sit back, and watch the claim fail to be proven.  I am not required to try and prove the negative.



Mudda said:


> Again, claiming that things do not exist because man hasn't discovered them yet is like saying, just before Columbus set sail, that there was nothing to find. Well, you could say that, but you'd be wrong, whether Columbus ever sets sail or not.


And, yet, that was *precisely the presumption*.  It was *presumed* that Columbus would end up coming ashore in China, or more likely that he was going to fall off the edge of the world.  That was the default position - that there was nothing there.  So, that was the rational position taken by the explorers, and scientists of the day.  *Now* we know better, but then, it was a perfectly reasonable expectation that there was nothing there.

Same with "God Exists".  Once evidence is provided to make that position untenable, then the position will be revised.  Until then, "There is no God" is the perfectly reasonable, rational position based on the current evidence available.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


First it doesn't have to explain that.  Second science does not make any claims about the "possible".  Guess what?  It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe.  It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe.  should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


It doesn't matter what you *see*. It matters what you can *demonstrate with repeated results*.  We all know that perception is subjective.  So, just because you "see" something, that is not proof that that something actually exists.  However, let us be crystawl clear.  Is it your contention that "God" actually exiosts *in the known physical universe*, and we have just not, yet, discovered the evidence to prove his existence?  Because that is a very different claim than either Ding, or Mudda are making.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> That's wh
> 
> 
> WillReadmore said:
> ...


The difference is that I don't believe we really need to win that argument in order to make the real world difference we need to make.

And, that's good - we are not going to kill religion.  We can not prove there is no God.  If that were necessary, we would be in trouble.

The saving grace is that we do not need to do that.  We can increase the support of the world of religion for pretty much any public policy dirsction without trying to kill religion.


Czernobog said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





Czernobog said:


> It's not about knowing the outcome.  It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator.  Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want.  "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply *presume a creator exists.* Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."
> 
> You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.



I did not choose it to skew the results.  I chose it because it was the only path available.  How else do you go about proving the existence of a supernatural being who supposedly created everything if not to study everything He created?



ding said:


> The universe had a beginning.





Czernobog said:


> I am going to stop you right there.  You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, *and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics*.  So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.



All cyclical infinite acting models violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


see 2:56


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Wh
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> ...


Not saying they would be, but if you can entertain the possibility of other beings in other universes next to ours...


----------



## Mudda (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Science continuously claims new theories, which are the possibles which are then explored.
But what I'm saying is that we don't know how the universe was made, and discounting an external force can't logically be done at this point in time.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And he examioned the mathematics of the Quantum Loop theory, to make this declaration?  By all means, do link to his examination of that theopry, so that we can see where the theory ismistaken.  otherwise, all you are doing is ignoring the evidence presented in facour of an opinion that you prefer.  I mean, that's fine.  You can do that.  Just be clear that you are just espousing an opinion, and not a fact.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to watch it.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 16, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No, scientific method has a very different definition for 'theory'.  

Science starts with hypotheses, not theories.  We get to theory only after extensive exploration and testing, mostly focused on proving falsity.  It includes repetition of tests by those not involved in the initial testing.  It includes others attempting to prove falsity by other means.  It 8nvolves review by experts in the field.

Theory is the very best understanding that science has to offer after extensive analysis.

Plus, science never gives up in its attempt to prove falsity.  We laud those who prove falsity.  Think of Einstein, well known as the one who blew away the results of mainstream physicists of his day.  Yet, we still have many groups testing the limits of his progress.

The result is that mistakes get found and corrected.

Humans can not do better than that, because we are not all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect-reasoning beings.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I did bother to watch it,  and his entire contradiction is about the theories based solely on Einsteinian physics.  In other words,  what he was talking about had nothing to do with the theory I presented repeatedly.

It looks like you're the one who didn't bother even reading the material I provided,  as you keep talking about something that is irrelevant to the theory presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 16, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


We very much doubt it


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I think I'll go with him.  It had everything to do with the your theory.  All cyclical infinite acting models have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  They make attempts to work around it but they all have problems.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Like what?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Like the need to invent dilution which still fails because if it were infinite acting it would be infinite now and no amount of dilution would stave off the ultimate loss of all usable energy in the closed system.  And if it were not infinite acting at this point then we are right back to square one with a beginning.  There is no path for an infinite acting cyclical universe that did not have a beginning.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No they don't.  But, of course you won't take the time to do the very thing you accused me of, because actually learning something mnew might force you to have to revise your irrational positi9on, and we can't have that, now, can we?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


But I did.  See.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


And there is a finite amount of useable energy, because?


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


It is a closed system.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You did what?  You certainly didn't learn anything.  All you did was hunt down a video that conforms to your preconceived irrational views.


ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So?  What does that have to do with it?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 16, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


.


Constructive Anarchy said:


> It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.




why would that not be true of every field of study since the beginning of time for one segment "or" the other. or more directly for those who willingly admit indifference.

why is your statement directed at atheism and not similarly at people who willingly accept a forged 4th century book as being an authentic religion as being the same lack of perception. possibly your own perception rather the for an authentic religion you willingly ignore.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I've done a lot more than that.  It's not like I haven't been looking at this for the past ten years, lol.

The closed system is what makes it finite.  

You should actually go and listen to some of his other talks because he makes a compelling case for how a close system can spontaneously appear out of nothing and still satisfy the conservation of energy laws.  The other excellent point he makes is that as long as QM don't violate the conservation laws, that any potentiality from QM will have a non-zero probability of occurring and will eventually occur.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yet, you want to insist that the universe had to have a beginning.  Fascinating.  You watch a video that says exactly what I have been saying, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that your "Universe must have a beginning" is not a foregone conclusion.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.  

Here is the key piece of data you need to understand.  All models, even the one's you believe, all start with our early universe in a hot dense tiny tiny space and then expanding and cooling.  All of them.  Why?  Because that is what the data shows.  That is the starting point from this point forward no energy is getting into or out of the system.  There is a finite amount of usable energy which means it is not an infinite amount which means that as time increases the amount of usable energy decreases and as time approaches infinity, the usable energy will go to zero.  Cyclical infinite acting cycles will eventually run out of usable energy.  

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 16, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - *that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore* - it doesn't *insist* that the universe had a beginning; that is only one *suggested* hypothesis.


----------



## ding (Jan 16, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


It's like you are waving your arms.  They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about.  And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you.  Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We don't know much of anything about what's outside our universe.  Asking about that gets an, "I don't know."

So, what's your point?


----------



## Constructive Anarchy (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


If only more people would pay attention to your groundbreaking experiments with quantum physics.   As if you even know what that means.   Fortunately you have complete faith in the possibilities of your theories.....no matter how little tangible evidence there might be.   Your logic represents quite an impressive evolution of human thought.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter,  and you'll have your answer. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Not my experiments.  Another person who doesn't bother reading links that don't conform to his preconceived notions,  I see. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Constructive Anarchy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Are you a Mormon?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.

You're not giving the notion an open mind you're saying there's an equal chance it exists as opposed to not.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


It's a yes/no proposition, whether there's an external force or not. That's 50/50. I guess you could look at it and say there's a billion different ways the universe could have come into being, so it's one in a billion chance? I dunno, lol. It seems like it's both, lol.


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


None and that doesn't mean anything.  What about the rest of matter that does?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Constructive Anarchy said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> Are you a Mormon?




no, I'm in agreement with Mudda, to be religious an individual like Columbus must cross the void to find the land on the other side, reading a book will not do that and will leave its adherent on the shore their ship never leaving the harbor. as why a spoken religion is the only means to discovering the truth for the reason to advance as a Spirit to the Everlasting.



.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Well what if you launch your ship, circle the world 300 times and don't find land?  Is there an equal probability that land is out there or do you eventually give up?  Do the odds go down the longer you look unsuccessfully?  Or if you find nothing do you continue to have blind faith despite the evidence?  What made you think there was land out there in the first place?  What makes you think a god exists in the first place?  

And theorizing that there are other lands out there beyond ours is not an extraordinary claim.  We aren't talking about invisible creators that created a heaven for us after we die and cares about us.  

Lastly, what the fuck did you just say?  I'm re reading it and what the fuck???  Are you speaking in tongues?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Sillyboob, you want to be an agnostic. It's cool, there's room for everyone. And we have good weed


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



I'm in!  LOL.

But I already told you I'm an agnostic.  An agnostic atheist.  See I lean towards disbelief.  Everyone leans one way or the other.  You just don't have the balls to lean.  Grow a pair.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters.  Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So you agree that there's no proof either way but you're leaning towards one side because their lack of proof is more convincing than the other side's lack of proof? Ya, you'll need big balls to float in that huge lake of nonsense.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite.  Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God.  Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God?  You see the problem with yout position, right?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I do.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Your argument:  *There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.*

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.  

The failure to disprove the existence of something _does not _constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly.  This is why Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

And it is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove _specific claims about_ and _definitions of_ a god.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
 We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No one is "excluding an external force".  In fact if we are in a lava lamp type universe it most certainly was external pressures that created our bubble.  But eventually our bubble will die.  And sure our bubble had a beginning.  Still what makes you think a god exists?

Let me ask you something.  Are you agnostic about Mary being a virgin?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You got me wrong again, lol. I didn't say that there's no evidence that a god doesn't exist, it's that there's no evidence that a god CAN'T exist. Maybe that's your problem.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Constructive Anarchy said:


> Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions?  Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization?  Are they spiritually dumb?



Which bubble/universe do we live in?  These are gods lava lamps.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Sure a god could exist.  So just because one COULD exist you think it's 50 50?  No you don't.  You lean atheist bra.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Again, I never said that a god exists.
Mary could have gotten pregnant while still being a virgin. I just explained how in another thread and I got warned by a mod and it was erased, so I'll let you imagine how, LOL!


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



That reminds me of the movie Don't Breath.  He was going to impregnate her with a turkey baster.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Is it rational?  Is it even a theory?  No it is not.  Not a scientific one.  It's a hypothesis at best.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  We're talking about your cowardly, and inconsistant willingness to sit on the fence when not doing so may offend a bunch of people, but having no problem being rational when it offends no one.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> [50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.


That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You put forward a scenario that you think is douche to start with, then get upset because I don't think that your dumb hamster situation is possible. And you wonder why I don't agree with you?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > [50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.
> ...


You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Who are you to insist my theory is douche?  Why are my hamsters any less likely than God? Just because no one has built a buch of temples to them? 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


If your saying that the external force of the universe if it exists is huge hamsters, then ok, they could be hamsters, I don't see why not.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right.  This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


They're atheists, lol.

So what would you consider unequal theories?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> What made you think there was land out there in the first place? What makes you think a god exists in the first place?











there is an apex to all things ... The Apex of Knowledge, till you reach the summit you reside in the void of its pursuit, if not faith as Columbus, desperation or having no choice the same is true, setting foot on the other side is the only way to understand its full meaning. swimming to the surface to take your breath is the same experience - and in the long run of life to free one's Spirit few seem to make it.


the genome of life must be a dimension all beings emerge from and where it would be possible to return to as a Freed Spirit, purity from and back to required ... ruled hopefully by an Almighty. that place may or may not have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

now you know.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"...  As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory.  It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis.  I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity.  "God exists, and he is invisible, *and* exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it?  It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Part of my point is that we cannot necessarily tell. But we should tentatively accept whichever theory best matches available evidence and which does not require additional entities.


----------



## pinqy (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> WillReadmore said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Science requires the formation of hypotheses.

In order to be a valid hypothesis there must be a method of proving falsity.  That is a fundamental precept of science.

The exciting thing about the detection of Higgs particles at Cern is that it brought these ideas about the fundamentals of gravity into the realm of science - stuff about which we can gather evidence, observe, prove false, etc.  Until then, serious scientists believed that these particles existed, but there was no way of testing those ideas.  Then, Europe built its super conducting super collider, making it possible to test these ideas. 

Any hypothesis that references God is outside of science, as humans have no way of testing that idea - no way to prove such ideas false.

That should be crystal clear.  For example, I could try creating an hypothesis that says that God does gravity.  That God moves each particle in the universe according to a pattern that we perceive as gravity.  Obviously, that is within the power of the God we are talking about - always present everywhere, totally powerful, etc.  But, there is no way of proving that false.  From there, please accept that the minute a hypothesis includes "God" it becomes untestable and thus is outside of science.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


We were thinking you are being obtuse.  Slow to understand.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...



Either gravity is holding us all down or god is.  I'll give you a hint.  One isn't even a theory


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

pinqy said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature.  By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for.  Rather convenient for them, no?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > WillReadmore said:
> ...


Kinda what I have been screaming.  If one wants to believe in the existence of God, feel free.  Just don't insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that an invisible entity that exists outside of the natural universe can be detected, and demonstrated with rational scientifically sound evidence.  It is, by nature, irrational.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Now you're copying me? I'm flattered.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


So then what you proposed weren't even unequal theories. Bravo. Care to try again?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > pinqy said:
> ...


Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think?  Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Why does the scientific standard offend you so?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


My mind isn't closed to discoveries.  Why do you think maintining the rational position "God does not exist" until such time as evidence demonstrates otherwise, precludes the search for, or acceptance of new discoveries?


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


See how much more fun that was.  There must be a God, lol.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You're just as deluded as czernoatheist.


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I'm  heck of  lot more fun though, lol.  You are one to talk.  You shouldn't be talking about others being deluded.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No,  I'm not,  and no I didn't.  You just admitted that the conversion of massless quantum matter unto energy,  and back does not create a loss of energy.  Thus, it does not violate the Law of Conservation. You want to pretend you didn't just confirm that,  because that was the tenuous thread upon which you were clinging to your "The universe is *required* to have a beginning" belief. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 17, 2017)

Find me real evidence for this god of yours and maybe you'll have a point...

Anyone that thinks throwing out all of science for this belief is the intellectual dead end and not believing in a unsupportable belief is insane.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




Oh yeah? If your so smart why haven't you disabled that lame sig line?


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


But every other conversion does.  Cyclical infinite acting universes are not possible.  That is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 

It was your addition of infinite energy that violated the Law of Conservation.  You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


We do not know of any "laws" that apply outside our own universe.

You are trying to pick and choose what you want from science.

It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


LOL!!!  amazing response.  You are dismissed. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You just confirmed that it is possible.  By converting massless quantum matter,  the universe has an endless supply of matter to convert without ever depleting normal matter.  You keep trying to ignore your own confirmation in your desperate attempt to hold onto your poorly constructed premise. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## hobelim (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




Seriously... just go into your settings and remove the damn thing...It really isn't befitting a man of such distinguished pretensions...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 17, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Seriously. Keep up the ad hominems.  They are clearly all you have left.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 17, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...




All I have left? lol..What are you talking about now?

I have no horse in this race.

Clearly, if you can't take a joke....


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Is that how you think it works?  Do you have a link that states that?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why am I deluded? You choose to believe something you can't prove, I don't.

But ya, czern is about as fun as a bible.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Because you believe you are agnostic.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm a hell of a lot more agnostic than you are Catholic, that's a fact, brah.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Is that how you think it works? Do you have a link that states that?




seriously, do you have a link verifying the attributions for any of the figures within the 4th century compilation of your book. can you explain why not or why the history of christianity has been so one sided - why you are so vehemently opposed against people making their own choices that you attempt to write laws and other means to oppress them -

why does your religion lend itself entirely to the politics of hatred as demonstrated throughout history. fearing a free Spirit so much as having a need to kill them ...


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I provided the theory that works off of that possiblity.  You just didn't bother to read it.  Go do some research.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


That's probably not saying much.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Yes, I did.  It does not say what you claim.   Can you explain how it does not violate the conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Apparently I have more than you do.  According to you, you have nothing.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


By your own admission it can't be proven one way or the other, so your point is moot.  Besides, I do have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What do you not understand?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


My original questions.  What can you not explain?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I thought of another way im better than a lot of Christians and Christian values are finally catching up with me.

How many Christians went to churches as kids? What's up with taking your kids to a show that abuses animals? I've always known they were bad. Well finally Ringling brothers is closing for good. Thank god! Lol. Took him long enough to get Christians to understand it's a barbaric show.

Yet I instinctively knew.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I don't believe I have ever been to a circus.  I must be better than you, right?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How about you explain how it does?  Since you already agreed that zero-mass matter is converted to energy without any loss of mass, then why does converting quantum matter, which is zero-mass, into energy violate the law of entropy?
Oh, and you do realize that, *according to Einstein*, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down?  Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies.  Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics *don't* break down.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


I'm talking about the rest of the matter that is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  You know... the universe.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So, quantum matter is *not* a part of the universe?  That is your claim?  Further, you do realize that, *according to Einstein*, the closer one comes to the Universe's origin, the laws of physics actually break down? Which means that the closer you come to "The Beginning", the less your 2nd Law of Thermodynamics even applies. Unless of course, you have a way to fix Einstein's formulae, so that the laws of physics *don't* break down.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


"...A detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. 

So how exactly does a graviton affect the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of the rest of the universe which is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Apparently I have more than you do. According to you, you have nothing.



you have the deaths of innocent people as the reality of your agenda disguised as a religion.

_*
According to you ...*_

that is according to bing ... the righteous 4th century inquisitor.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Because it is infinitely reusable.  You get that the problem with observing gravitons isn't that so few exist, but that they convert so quickly that observing them is practically impossible, right?

And I notice that you didn't even acknowledge that "The Big Bang", based on Einsteinian physics *doesn't work*.  No one has ever fixed the flaws in the original calculations, and theory.  They have just kept right on working with it, as if it works.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No, wrong.  Gravitons are only hypothetical. So 0, until we can prove otherwise.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


*Everything we are discussing is hypothetical!!!!!* So,  what's your point? And,  for the record,  gravitons are *theoretical*, not hypothetical.  There is a difference. A hypothesis has never been tested. The existence of gravitons has been tested - repeatedly - and the math is sound; unlike your God that has never been so much as detected, let alone tested, with any mathematic confirmation.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Cuz you're not much of a Catholic?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I didn't say that it can't be proven, but rather that it hasn't been proven.

And what started the universe is only beyond science at this point in time.

And why must the attribute of the first cause be eternal? Because you say so?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


No.  Not everything.  Some are observations and measurements.  In the case of gravitons they a hypothetical.  Besides, like I have already explained to you cyclical models have problems.  Specifically, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.  You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it.  Do you know how CERN describes the beginning of the universe?

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No, they are not.  They are *theoretical*.  There is a difference.
A hypothesis has never been tested. The existence of gravitons has been tested - repeatedly - and the math is sound; unlike your God that has never been so much as detected, let alone tested, with any mathematic confirmation.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No, you said it can't be proven and that's why you are agnostic.  

Are you changing your mind?  How exactly can a supernatural being be proven?

No, because logic says so.  The only thing that doesn't need a cause is something that is eternal.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Are you still trying to argue that it is possible to prove the existence of a supernatural being using science?

No, gravitons are hypothetical.

"In theoretical physics, the *graviton* is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory...."

Graviton - Wikipedia


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Actually, I can answer that last question.  Because for every effect (The Big Bang), there must be a preceding cause.  So, the only way to avoid that with the causer of the Big Bang (such must also have had a cause to come into being), it requires Special Pleading (It was eternal), thereby avoiding infinite regression, and no God.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Because you can't prove something, it's eternal? That's not even logical, let alone totally made up.

And I've always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible. Are you drinking midweek again?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Why do you need to avoid it?  All the science points to it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


And I keep telling you that atheists do not claim that a god *cannot* exist - only that "God *does not* exist" is the rational position, until such time as evidence proves the position untenable.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Then you admit that there was no "First cause"?  That every cause had a preceding cause ad infinitum?  Really??????


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No, because the only way to break the cause and effect cycle is something that did not need a cause because it had no beginning (i.e. it was eternal).  

Is midweek a new liquor?

You have always said that atheists can't prove that a god is not possible?  And you accused me of drinking, lol?  Re-read that and get back to me.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you are expecting to find natural evidence for a supernatural being?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Don't be silly  All the data points to a first cause.  

No. A cyclical infinite acting universe is not possible.   At least not from the Laws of Nature I know about.  That would be perpetual motion.  Perpetual motion does not exist because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Some atheists say that a god can't exist, and the others are really agnostics without knowing it.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I dispute the existence of a "supernatural" being.  Nature is *all-encompassing*.  As such, it is not possible for something to exist outside of everything.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Now you're just contradiction yourself.  You just got done saying all science points to infinite regression, and now you are denying infinite regression.  Which is it?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Point me to the atheists who say that god *can't* exist.  Not the ones who say that God *does not* exist, but says God *can't* exist.  Because you certainly have not run across one on *this* forum.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Dispute all you want.  I have good reason for my belief. The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it. Do you know how CERN describes the beginning of the universe?




Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium


if someone is looking for something new from your momentous article ... they have a big surprise awaiting them.


not to mention nothing about - _*You don't understand this concept which is why you can't discuss it.*_


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Good for you.  You have your beliefs.  They are entirely unproven proven, but you have your beliefs.  Just quit stating your beliefs as if they are facts. They aren't.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Your eternal being is a somewhat plausible theory, but like I've always said, you just need some proof. And because you can't find proof, it's eternal. The simpleton's circular convenience.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


God as in the god of the bible who was so pooped after 6 days that he needed a day off?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Your belief that there is no god isn't proven either. So cut it out as well.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


 _The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever, _Isaiah 40.8


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Creating is so much fun that sometimes you have to force yourself to take a break from it.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Does god have a long white beard too?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Did god talk in English?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

.


ding said:


> God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.




not your god of the 4th century ...


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Maybe you can explain it to him.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> ding said:
> ...


There is only one God.  How many do you believe there are?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I don't know.  Maybe.  Maybe not.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


We speak in Italian.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.


Czernobog said:


> Nature is *all-encompassing*. As such, it is not possible for something to exist outside of everything.




the genome of life is distinct from the physical nature it derives.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


*Sigh* I swear you are like a broken record.  God does not exist is not a fact.  It is a negative assertion.  It is the *rational presumption in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary.*  Nothing more, nothing less. If you, or Ding, or anyone else would like to move me off of this default null position, all they have to do is present objective evidence to the existence of God, at which I time I will say, "*Based on the evidence*, God exists,"  Until then, I will continue to maintain my  rational  null presumption.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Ummmm...okay?  I have no idea what your point here is, or how it relates to my assertion that you are quoting, but, okay.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever,




what has that have to do with your religions criminal acts of brutality ... other than coming from you those words are a hollow gesture.  

not to mention belittling Flora for the sake of your god.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I just heard a nice saying. Hurt people hurt people. It is not my intention to hurt anyone so I'll keep that in mind moving forward


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.


Czernobog said:


> Ummmm...okay? I have no idea what your point here is, or how it relates to my assertion that you are quoting, but, okay.




the genome of life is physical in a different dimension than the physiology it produces. and I suppose you still disbelieve germs exist because you can not see them ...


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's a damn good saying.  Mind if I use it?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Why would need to you suppose anything about me?  You could always ask.  Where does the genome of life reside?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


.


ding said:


> There is only one God. How many do you believe there are?




the Almighty God and the multitude of Free Spirits that comprise innumerable gods of infinite characters.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Why do you keep saying "your god?"  There is only one God.  As long as one let's Him know they are looking for Him, He'll find them.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


And how did you learn about the Almighty God?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I think we can and should be free to have this discussion and atheists, for their own reasons, should be free to have this conversation.

If we think it's made up that's a pretty big lie people are swallowing so I think all people should be informed that the stories could be made up. But I have that conversation in this thread.

I've seen you start other threads about Christianity. It was for Christians so it would have been inappropriate for me to talk my shit in that thread.

Remember the title of this thread. Anyone coming here is asking for blunt comments from both sides.

I know lots of religious people who have come here but quickly move on. Cause belief is personal.and should stay that way


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> How so?




_A genome is an organism's complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build and maintain that organism. In humans, a copy of the entire genome—more than 3 billion DNA base pairs—is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.

_
because the above is not in genesis is no reason to exclude its origin as directed by the Almighty and _maintained_ by those that have advanced to the Everlasting._ 
_


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Why do you keep saying "your god?" There is only one God. As long as one let's Him know they are looking for Him, He'll find them.




if you have not caught on by now you are simply dead ... your god is the 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Good points, but just because you believe it is made up doesn't mean that it is.  It actually explains a lot.  First of all you have to accept that nothing is as it seems.  You should pretty much do the opposite of everything you see others do.  When and if you can ever wrap your mind around the concept that everything is broken then you will have swallowed the red pill.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


That's what I thought you were talking about.  So how is the genome distinct from the physical nature it derives and what do you mean by physical nature it derives?  Derives from whom?  It's genome and what does this have to do with the Almighty?

Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Luke 12:7


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I have not caught on because you have been less than forthcoming.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


As long as you guys are going to keep asking for natural evidence of the supernatural, this will be my answer.   The only evidence we have is of what He created.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Have you ever considered that in Genesis the story of the creation of heaven and earth was not ever about the creation of the universe or solar system but was always about a time, less than 10,000 years ago when divine law was established as a light that teaches people to distinguish between clean and unclean, true and false, right and wrong, good and evil, life and death, etc.,  in a world that had been covered in darkness and without form and void for billions of years?

Those who conform to the teaching of the law are of a rational and sober mind and belong to the world above, heaven, those who set aside the teaching and are ruled by their own impulses, fears, desires, confusion, and unrestrained imaginations are of the world below, the earth.

Nothing supernatural about that, its not rocket science, nothing arcane, suspension of disbelief not required.

Would you find that too hard to believe?


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Yes and no.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I have never said anything about being seen.  You seem to think that I have been demanding that God be visible.  there are many invisible things that we can detect, and measure: gases, microbes, quantum matter, gravity, just to name a few.  However, God has never been detected, nor has any scientific method to verify, or measure God, or the effect God has on the universe, ever been developed.  As soon as it is, and there is objective evidence to verify the existence of God, let me know, let me study the verifiable, and repeatable results, and I'll be happy to revise my position.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


What objective evidence could there be of a supernatural being?  Are you really expecting some?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


How can something be outside of everything?


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




If thats true then you should realize that arguing about whether God created the universe based on scripture is a baseless argument because that is not what the creation story in genesis is about.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




Stop playing games already.

You believe that a three in one mangod performed supernatural demonstrations of divine power in full view of believers and unbelievers alike.

If even one so called miracle of Jesus was supernatural how is it possible that anyone would not have believed? With so many believers in the supernatural out there how is it possible that not even the one with the greatest faith can make a blind man see or turn water into wine?

Didn't Jesus say that believers would do what he was doing?

C'mon man, think.

You can do it!


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Easy.  We are inside the box.  What's not in the box is outside of the box.  

Your Brain Is the Universe -- Part 1 | The Huffington Post


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


They did and still do today.  A significant percentage of the world's population do believe. Not bad for a criminal who was put to death by the superpower of the day after only a 3 1/2 year ministry.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Some of it is.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




I'm not saying anything negative about Jesus. And I am not criticizing nor condemning the faith of believers in Jesus.

I am just pointing out that you all have the whole damn story all wrong.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Honest men can have honest differences of opinion.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Sure but if you are a believer, getting the story right is a matter of life and death.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I don't see it that way.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Maybe *you* are inside a box.  I guess that explains a lot.  I do not exist inside a box.  I reside in an ever-expanding universe that encompasses everything in existence.  By definition, nothing can exist beyond a universe that encompasses everything in existence.  If a "supernatural" entity exists, it is part of existence, thus it is a part of nature which encompasses everything that exists, so it is not, in fact, supernatural.  Supernatural, like God, is one of those words that we invented that actually describes a thing that does not exist.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




So, you really don't believe in the parting of the sheep and goats, heaven and hell, eternal life and eternal death and all that jazz..

Who knew?

Rising from the dead and ascending into the kingdom of heaven is about as easy or difficult as it is for a person to be honest with themselves and others.

The least you can do is try.

Lets face it, no one knows better than you that your own openly professed beliefs and faith in the ridiculous are the real intellectual dead end.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


The painter is not the painting.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Sure I do.  Maybe just not like you think I do. 

No one is asking you to have these beliefs. 

I don't believe that anyone who actively seeks to know God will ever be intellectually dead.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Pssst!

If you are not already with God and if God is not already with you, you are already dead.


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Then I must certainly be alive.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


  Is that your way of saying that God is with you? Don't be shy.

Do you like to gamble? Stand up for the home team?

Why not call on your God for a divine demonstration of supernatural power over reality, something that bears the seal of the living God, something easy like turning water into wine?

Then, when nothing happens,  I'll give it a go...


----------



## ding (Jan 18, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Yes, I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me.  It is written do not put the Lord your God to the test.  Be my guest though.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Yes, I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me.



What is that supposed to mean, "I can do all things in Christ"?

Exactly what powers does your belief give you? Concrete examples, something measurable in the real world.


----------



## hobelim (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Can't cop out that easy ding.

Its not about putting God to the test, its about putting you to the test. It is exactly what scripture requires.

Care to continue?


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 18, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Okay.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 18, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


.
all good points without the religious ad hominem - there are other aspects to consider, the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the state of attained purity, the progression of evolution and best of all the demise of the desert religions that over time could very well lead to the metaphysical explanation atheist demand to satisfy their curiosity. just hopefully time does not pass them by.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I thought you knew all the unprovable stuff?


----------



## Mudda (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you don't know. Got it.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me.
> ...


Peace through storms, the power of objectivity, the power of confession, the power of forgiveness, the power of thankfulness, etc.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


To be fair, I don't speak it very well, so don't blame Him.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 19, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You've built yourself a strawman position that your assumptions don't have to be proven. You could say that given the lack of evidence, that god has not yet been proven, but to say that there is no god period is like saying before the discovery of gravity, that there is no gravity. 
Now, I'm not agnostic on every question you're going to ask, but it seem seems to me that at this point in time, it is illogical to discount an external force (at least influencing or helping) in the creation of the universe.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

hobelim said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


It's not a cop out.  I don't believe you understand how it works.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So I'm going to grovel and kiss bible butt my whole life just to get somewhere where I don't understand the language and resembles Italy? No thanks, been there, it stinks.


----------



## Mudda (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You learn that in catechism?


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


No.  Nuns.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


I don't care what you do.  Do whatever you want.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 19, 2017)

Mudda said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


That was the position.  It was, in fact, a hotly debated topic,  at the time of Newton.  "Gravity is not a thing,". That did not make it a fact.  It was simply the default position of the day.  Then Newton's evidence was tested, and the position was discarded. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Peace through storms, the power of objectivity, the power of confession, the power of forgiveness, the power of thankfulness, etc.




the power to understand the brutal history of the desert religions to alter their disproportionate appeal to the reality of their distorted objectives.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


D’ Souza vs. Shermer: Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?

Letter to a cadet: How Christianity sparked Western civilization - Centennial Institute

Reasons To Believe : How Christianity Shaped Western Civilization


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.
those who live in denial of the desert religions history of oppression are themselves the stewards of their religions history. only by educating enough people to not be entrapped by their false teachings will the injustices be resolved and the true religion be set free.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


What true religion would that be?  Is it a secret or something?

There is no denial.  By any objective measure Christianity has been a force for good.

D’ Souza vs. Shermer: Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?

Letter to a cadet: How Christianity sparked Western civilization - Centennial Institute

Reasons To Believe : How Christianity Shaped Western Civilization


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

Mudda said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Mudda said:
> ...


Of course it is plausible.  It is plausible because it is logical and it explains what we have observed.  There's your proof.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> There is no denial. By any objective measure Christianity has been a force for good.











every denomination is a denial against the legitimacy of 4th century christianity and its history of oppression - they just need the OP as a cheerleader to take the final step. the other desert religions included.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


No thanks.  They are my brothers too.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> No thanks. They are my brothers too.




they left your church for good reasons, your just the last to know.


----------



## ding (Jan 19, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I don't see it that way.  Diversity of thought is a good thing.  It is how nature works.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I don't see it that way. Diversity of thought is a good thing. It is how nature works.




they chose a better way than yours, it is by nature they are afraid to see the full light to gain their freedom.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 19, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You get that none of those divisions of Christianity are really all that diverse, right?  Christianity is Christianity.  Except for Catholicism (which is *really* different from just about every other denomination in its dogma), all of those denominations basically "broke off" over relatively minor questions of interpretations, like "What does baptize _really_ mean?"  So, yeah, you trying to hold out those different denominations as examples of "diversity of thought" really is stretching the concept.  In fact, those flavours of Christianity that are *truly* diverse in their thoughts - Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, for example - most of you other Christians pretty universally dismiss as cults, and not *really* included in "The Body of Christ".  So, yeah...you guys really aren't that interested in "diversity of thought".


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 20, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


The divisions are large, because Christians believe they are unforgivable, non-negotiable absolutes.


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I don't see a huge difference in any of them even Catholicism, but then again I see similarities between all major religions too.  No one said diversity myst be diametrically opposed to make it diverse,  Diversity is what it is. There is a distribution.


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


I am happy enough for each person to walk his or her own path.  I'm not like you.  I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me.  What others do or don't do is up to them.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Except diversity must be...well...diverse.  Do you know what Ghost White, and Floral White are?  Still White.





That isn't diversity.  It's still all white. "Is it a cracker, or a piece of bread?", "Do you sprinkle, pour, or dunk?", "Pre-Trib, or Post-Trib?" aren't diversity.  They are all still *the exact same religion*, with minor interpretive differences that have no effect on the actual religion.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 20, 2017)

WillReadmore said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Except they are minor.  Just because John is convinced that Frank is going to Hell, because he was sprinkled on as a kid, instead of fully dunked as an adult, doesn't really change the *actual doctrine of the religion*, does it?  Then the differences are minor, and calling them "diverse" is an abuse of the word.

You know what religious organization *really* celebrates diversity of thought?  Unitarians.  They don't give a shit what your beliefs are.  So long as you are tolerant of everyone else, and their individual  belief system, they're cool with you, come on in.  You are welcome to celebrate.  Christian, Hindu, Pagan, Pastafarian, they don't care.  It's all celebrating spirituality, as far as their concerned.  *That's* being open to diversity of thought...


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I am happy enough for each person to walk his or her own path. I'm not like you. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me. What others do or don't do is up to them.




you live in a world of ad hominem the same as your barbaric region, 4th century christianity and no those other denominations may be similar in theology but why they are distinct was their distaste for the oppression generated by your political agenda disguised as a religion.


what do you mean "portion", so you too are a denomination ...


the religion of the Almighty is not a book, the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the spoken parable of Noah is all there is - choosing correctly in "Triumph" is the passage to the Everlasting.


your book is a pariah.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


.


Czernobog said:


> ... all of those denominations basically "broke off" over relatively minor questions of interpretations ...




the catalyst for the separation was their aversion in some form or another to the oppression generated by the 4th century agenda disguised as a religion. you are correct they did not abandon that origin the 4th century bible.


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And yet the same applies to finches.

Photo Gallery of the different Finch Species


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Not to me it isn't.  If you knew the Bible you would understand what I meant by portion.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Nice non-sequitur.  Meanwhile you are still a part of a religious system that doesn't exactly encourage true intellectual diversity, and whose factions squabble over small, meaningless minutiae..


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


You would be surprised what is allowed to go on.  We love science and we love diversity of thought.  They help form our understanding of objective truth.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you keep claiming...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

Czernobog said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


And proving.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 20, 2017)

disobeying Ten simple Commandments is an intellectual dead end, for theists.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 20, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> Not to me it isn't. If you knew the Bible you would understand what I meant by portion.





ding said:


> I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me.




save us your sympathy, the better portion of what you will not have taken from you, is it 20 questions, surely that makes a lot of sense to your flock of Finche's.


sounds a little paranoid ... I'm quite happy with the spoken religion and have no need to torture anyone. I read part of the first pg and set it down so yes I do know your bible.


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> disobeying Ten simple Commandments is an intellectual dead end, for theists.


No.  It is a failure to control urges.  That is basic, not intellectual.  And it isn't a dead end, it is just a failure to control an urge.


----------



## ding (Jan 20, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You have no religion and clearly you do have a need to torture Christians.  Like I said before if you knew and understood the Bible, you would have known what I meant.


----------



## Czernobog (Jan 20, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


It's nice that you think that. 

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk


----------



## Mudda (Jan 21, 2017)

ding said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


You haven't proved anything.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 21, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > disobeying Ten simple Commandments is an intellectual dead end, for theists.
> ...


that is a social failure; not a capital failure.


----------



## ding (Jan 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No, it is an individual failure.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 21, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


socialism involves individuals.  capitalism involves individuals, and voluntary social transaction that may involve, mutually beneficial trade.


----------



## ding (Jan 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You would have to have an external locus of control to believe that.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 21, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


not really; just self-evident truths.


----------



## ding (Jan 21, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Like individuals are accountable for their own actions.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


is that why we have social justice and not moral justice?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I saw a dead body tonight. My neighbor most likely killed himself but something isn't right. There were guys over at his house that no one knows who they are. It turns out he was secretly gay. He may have tried to commit suicide about a year ago. If that's true he probably killed himself. Maybe feeling guilty and dirty after they left. And he just met this cute girl at work and his life was going well. I know more details than I should because my buddy is the detective in my town so he got called in. He said the angle of the bullet doesn't seem right so they are doing an autopsy and they treated it like a crime scene.

His girlfriend was worried because they were supposed to hang out at 1pm but it was 5pm and you could see in his doorwall his phone, shoes, lights were on, car in its spot.

I knew something was wrong. I volunteered to go in. I was expecting to see od'd not his brains all over the wall. No one heard a shot last night.

I went over to borrow milk last night late after poker and saw him hanging with these guys. Don't know if they had anything to do with it.  Luckily my cop friend found a text saying I'm here so hopefully they can track them down. What if they murdered him? They might think I can identify them but I was drunk I don't remember what they looked like. Wish I would have paid closer attention.

I can't believe the kid did that to himself. He was a bit of an oddball.

Loved his guns and he was a huge trump fan. He was happy about inauguration this just doesn't make sense but no one knows what other people are really thinking.

What a scene. I knew something was wrong but did not expect to see that.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


No, we have moral justice, you just don't understand it which is why you push for social justice.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Only if you consider, Faithfully executing our own laws simply for the sake of public morals, to be moral justice and not social justice.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> No, we have moral justice, you just don't understand it which is why you push for social justice.


...........



ding said:


> I only know that what was wasn't as you say. I know this because I know what you just accused me of is unfounded and untrue.





ding said:


> No. It is you who is unenlightened when you place false words I did not speak in my mouth. It is you who is unenlightened that when called out for it, dismiss it and then try to fob it off on me as if it were my fault. It is you who is unenlightened when you have no faith and attack the faith of others.




you are a work of ad hominen beyond reproach bing, _"Appealing to the emotions rather than to logic or reason"_ ... your speaking of moral justice is a joke.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I found one positive reason for believing in God. People should be told they'll go to hell if they kill themselves. It's a deterrent.

But now we are finding out the guy who killed himself was struggling with his sexuality. Who said God cares if you're gay? Who put that in the kids head?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 22, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


. 


sealybobo said:


> Who said God cares if you're gay? Who put that in the kids head?




not the 1st century ... something about the 4th, not that it is not questionable but stepping beyond the bounds as being a legitimate way of life by means of a book is.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Point is belief in God can be used to stop people from killing themselves but then people kill themselves because God said they are flawed.

Great example of how religion can be used for right or wrong.

Nothing wrong if the man likes the dong


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 22, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


sealybobo said:


> Point is belief in God can be used to stop people from killing themselves but then people kill themselves because God said they are flawed.




I agree about religion, there are differences so were they in need for support they could find the one for that reason and not so for those that use their religion as a cudgel against others ... not that were he an atheist could not have worked either. why there is an Almighty without the religion is much better than the religion in the long run.


----------



## WillReadmore (Jan 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Do you think there should be a separate system for establishing and enforcing morality? 

Our legislature, police and courts seem to be too constrained.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


How'd he die?


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That wasn't what I was talking about, but they used to be.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I don't claim any moral high ground but that shouldn't dissuade me for calling you out.  You put false words into my mouth, when I called it out you dismissed it then traied to blame me for it and you have no faith and you attack the faith of others.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


That's called anarchy.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I'm starting to smell bullshit.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> I don't claim any moral high ground but that shouldn't dissuade me for calling you out. You put false words into my mouth, when I called it out you dismissed it then traied to blame me for it and you have no faith and you attack the faith of others.




that is you attacking my faith, the religion of the Almighty as I have had to remind you of more than a few times - this is the religion forum discussing your religion is fair game if you can't defend your version without attacking people that is your problem not mine.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


You don't have a religion, lol.  What's the name of your religion?   I can't attack what you don't have.  You are just another fucking troll.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


.


ding said:


> That's called anarchy.




seriously are you that afraid to allow someone to be a free Spirit and that would cause anarchy ... and you believe living by a prescripted unverified book is the only means to reach a fulfilled life, when history casts an entirely different and verified conclusion. is most of your day spent daydreaming by chance.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


Afraid?  No.  I'm counting on it.  Yes, I believe that belief in a power greater than man leads to freedom and liberty and that anything which opposes that leads to slavery and tyranny.  Unverified?  Only to you.  I have verified it the only way it can be verified.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Put a gun to his eye and blew his brains out or someone shot him. They're doing an autopsy to see if he did it himself. I can't believe no one heard the shot. I'd like to know time of death.


----------



## ding (Jan 22, 2017)

The eye, huh?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 22, 2017)

ding said:


> The eye, huh?


I didn't think seeing that would haunt me but it has a little. Now I see a little how people who come back from war and see a lot of death come back messed up in the head.

I'm curious who those guys were that were at his place that night. Did they shoot him? Who were they? He may have met them online and they robbed him and killed him for being gay. Shits racing in my head. His poor parents either way. I'll let you know when I find out more. I just had to tell someone.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...


My cop buddy said he killed himself. He got a hold of the guys who were visiting and he doesn't think they did it.

I thought you'd call bs when I said he was a big trump fan. He was. He had trump signs all over, we talked about politics and he was so happy trump won. It was inauguration night I can't believe he killed himself Friday night/saturday morning.


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


That's pretty sad.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2017)

ding said:


> The eye, huh?


Well it seems Catholicism can lead to a dead end too. I just found out his parents tried to pray the gay away and it's not the first time he tried killing himself. Rather than accept him for who he is their religion told them to tell him he's evil or immoral. When religion goes wrong


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


His parents said it was an accident. Same thing they said the last time he tried killing himself. They aren't having a funeral.

If he was wasted he probably didn't feel a thing. I always worry there might be ten minutes where you're alive and feeling the pain. I've shot deer before then shot them in the head and they still move for ten minutes sometimes. I just could never shoot myself. I hope he shot a good spot and he didn't feel a thing while he bled out.

I can't help feel sorry for him just laying there like that all those hours but I guess like sanatra sang he did it his way.

I wish I could have talked to him and helped but I'm also glad he didn't involve me or I would be feeling guilty right now


----------



## ding (Jan 23, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The eye, huh?
> ...


I was wondering how long it would take you to make your way back to this.  E.L.C.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What's elc?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2017)

ding said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


I was thinking about God while we were all in the hall in shock. The only time God was brought up was when I told the best friend's mom that he's dead. She says oh lord no a few times but the girlfriend never mentioned God. The cops and paramedics never mentioned God. 

This tells me God is not a good coping mechanism for suicides. We tend to feel like people who do that don't go to heaven but if I believed in a God he would take in these tortured souls.

And gays are beautiful just the way they are. I know you think you are more moral because you have a moral code written in stone but here is an example of how the ancients got it wrong. Gay is natural. They should have said God doesn't make mistakes.

A lot of Christians are OK with gays. Your religion is already evolving


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2017)

If you want to blow a guy God bless you


----------



## ding (Jan 24, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


External locus of control.  You should do something about that.


----------

