Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

.
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.

.

.

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

.

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

maybe an image will help you


View attachment 104783


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.

.

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?

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

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Ayn Rand was a conservative. You're not.

Sooo...you're okay with atheists...just so long as they are conservatives?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

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.

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

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?

That is a deep question with significant implications.

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

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

So, stopping a man committing genocide was an immoral thing? Like I said...exposed as a moron. Such absolutism is moronic.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

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.

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

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?

That is a deep question with significant implications.

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

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

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]

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

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?

That is a deep question with significant implications.

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

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

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.

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]

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

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?

That is a deep question with significant implications.

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

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

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.

If only religion could use these social medias to gain membership, you know they would.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

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?

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

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.

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!"

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Ayn Rand was a conservative. You're not.

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]

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]

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

Exactly and they continue to deny it

We don't see it.

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

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

Which is all the time.

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?

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

A militant atheist will passionately debate you. A religious fundamental will kill an atheist.

 

[sealybobo]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

No one has ever suggest that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

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]

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?

That is a deep question with significant implications.

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

You keep talking about "pop culture atheists". What exactly do you mean by this, and how do "Pop Culture Atheiosts" differe from...classic (?) atheists?

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.

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

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]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

No one has ever suggest that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

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

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]

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?

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

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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

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]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

No one has ever suggest that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

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

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.

So where exactly do you believe you can find this object evidence you aren't seeking?

 

[ding]

Exactly and they continue to deny it

We don't see it.

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

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

Which is all the time.

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?

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

A militant atheist will passionately debate you. A religious fundamental will kill an atheist.

Modern history says it is the other way around. It is not even close either.

 

[ding]

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

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.

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.

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

Ayn Rand was a conservative. You're not.

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

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]

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?

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

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.