Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Mudda]

That's funny. Because you proclaim it so, it is so. You really have no understanding at all about the scientific method, do you?

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

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

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.

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.

But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?

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]

I proclaim it because that's what the evidence shows. The universe has become self aware. What greater thing is there?

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

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.

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.

But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?

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.

So you are not really an agnostic, lol.

 

[Mudda]

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

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.

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.

But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?

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.

So you are not really an agnostic, lol.

A god/creator has not been proven to not be possible. The god of the bible has been debunked over and over again.

 

[ding]

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.

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.

But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?

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.

So you are not really an agnostic, lol.

A god/creator has not been proven to not be possible. The god of the bible has been debunked over and over again.

So why are you still discussing it?

 

[Mudda]

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.

But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?

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.

So you are not really an agnostic, lol.

A god/creator has not been proven to not be possible. The god of the bible has been debunked over and over again.

So why are you still discussing it?

I'm trying to help you understand what an agnostic is. Civic duty and all that.

 

[ding]

But you're agnostic so you don't know, right?

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.

So you are not really an agnostic, lol.

A god/creator has not been proven to not be possible. The god of the bible has been debunked over and over again.

So why are you still discussing it?

I'm trying to help you understand what an agnostic is. Civic duty and all that.

Your love for fellow man and altruism is off the chart.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?

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?

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.

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,"

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.

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]

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.

So you are not really an agnostic, lol.

A god/creator has not been proven to not be possible. The god of the bible has been debunked over and over again.

So why are you still discussing it?

I'm trying to help you understand what an agnostic is. Civic duty and all that.

Your love for fellow man and altruism is off the chart.

Thanks, atheism is an intellectual dead end as well. (Have to stick to the topic not to be a troll, )

 

[ding]

So you are not really an agnostic, lol.

A god/creator has not been proven to not be possible. The god of the bible has been debunked over and over again.

So why are you still discussing it?

I'm trying to help you understand what an agnostic is. Civic duty and all that.

Your love for fellow man and altruism is off the chart.

Thanks, atheism is an intellectual dead end as well. (Have to stick to the topic not to be a troll, )

Did the mod tell you that, lol.

 

[ding]

Why would I do that? Why wouldn't I just tell you what the evidence really told me?

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?

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.

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,"

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.

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

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]

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

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.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

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.

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.

.

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]

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

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.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

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.

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.

.

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.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

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.

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.

.

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.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

.

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]

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

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.

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.

.

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.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

View attachment 106678


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.

Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?

 

[ding]

- 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]

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.

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.

.

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.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

View attachment 106678


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.

Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?

.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

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]

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?

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.

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,"

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.

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

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?

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]

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.

.

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.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

.

You mean you don't believe in free will?

View attachment 106678


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.

Is it possible for you to be anymore evasive? Do you believe in free will? Yes or no?

.

How each person chooses to interpret that data is up to them.

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.

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]

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.

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,"

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.

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

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?

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

Good grief is your ego so large that you believe any response is a valid response?

 

[BreezeWood]

- 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.

.

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.