Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

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?

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?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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]

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?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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.

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]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

It is the only solution to the first cause.

Personally, I've found nothing intellectually stimulating in the atheist movement.

Yet you find such stimulation in 2,000 year old fantasy stories?

I find wisdom and knowledge in them.

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?

He more than covered this in his four points. His literal rebuttal would be to re-paste his original four points.

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.

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.

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

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 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

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.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

 

[ding]

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.

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.

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.

It is the only solution to the first cause.

I find wisdom and knowledge in them.

He more than covered this in his four points. His literal rebuttal would be to re-paste his original four points.

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.

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

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 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

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.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

 

[BreezeWood]

.
by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

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?

.

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.

The Bible nailed the ...

you and the OP are nothing but stool pigeons made fools of by 4th century charlatans.

Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.

.

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.

What you intended for evil, He has used for good.

.

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]

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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.

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.

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.

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]

A thinking man's comedian. Another foreign concept for pop culture atheists.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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 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

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.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So declares the braintrust who mocks anyone who responds to his proclamations with anything other than adoration for his brilliance.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

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?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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.

Remember, the only thoughts and perceptions that matter will be articulated for you by Professor Czerno.

 

[Czernobog]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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.

Remember, the only thoughts and perceptions that matter will be articulated for you by Professor Czerno.

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]

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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.

Remember, the only thoughts and perceptions that matter will be articulated for you by Professor Czerno.

Actually, what we are talking about has nothing to do with perceptions. But, being stupid, I can understand how you would be confused.

I'm sure you're more than adequate to the task of being his tour guide to the black void of nothingness.

 

[ding]

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?

Are you not familiar with gravitons?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 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

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.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

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?

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]

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 falsify or disprove you are agnostic about. Like my invisible dragon. You are on the fence on her right?

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.

Stick with faith because you can't prove anything.
Faith=Wishful thinking

That's funny because I believe I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me.

That's called the placebo effect. Now you know.

That hasn't been my observations.

What's your best observation that proves all this to be true to you.

 

[sealybobo]

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

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.

It's because you guys have been much more in your face the last 17 years. Much more dangerous

I see. You blame others for your behavior.

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL ALERT

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?

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.

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]

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

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.

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?

.

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.

The Bible nailed the ...

you and the OP are nothing but stool pigeons made fools of by 4th century charlatans.

Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.

How about when he shows himself for real?

 

[sealybobo]

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

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.

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!

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.

I once had faith

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.

This is funny. I didn't have enough or the right kind of faith. Lol. Sorry I can't fully believe the unbelievable