Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[sealybobo]

According to you, ignorance = god

As in, you don't know how the universe started, so god is as good an answer as anything, so you say. Sheesh, those ultra low standards again.

Was that the best you could do at mocking it? Try again....

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

I hope your level of intelligence isn't the pinnacle.

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

In some ways yes.

Which ways?

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

 

[Mudda]

Was that the best you could do at mocking it? Try again....

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

I hope your level of intelligence isn't the pinnacle.

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I think CZERNOBOG is.

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

 

[ding]

What is illogical? The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. These are not illogical beliefs. These are logical beliefs.

According to you, ignorance = god

As in, you don't know how the universe started, so god is as good an answer as anything, so you say. Sheesh, those ultra low standards again.

Was that the best you could do at mocking it? Try again....

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

I hope your level of intelligence isn't the pinnacle.

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I believe your high priest is smarter than you. That's how he gets 10% of your pay. So you might make 10% more than I do but we are even. LOL.

Oh, and you are just making another bad argument. #13

Why there is no god

Smart person X believes in god or ‘You are not qualified’.
Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.

Invisible pink unicorns exist. You’re not an expert in them, so you can’t say they don’t.

The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.

Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.

The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

He might be more intelligent than I am. Who said I gave 10% to him anyway? Does it give you comfort to know that you are making the exact same argument that Karl Marx made?

The question you still have not answered is do YOU believe YOU are are more intelligent than me?

What bad argument am I making? It seems that you are having to resort to copy and pasting. Can you explain my bad argument to me in your own words? Or is that beyond your level of intelligence to do so? Here is my argument in my own words.... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. What did I get wrong, Einstein?

I have not argued against the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Maybe they do exist. What does that have to do with... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

Yes, the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Now tell me what is irrational about... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

Because if you can then I submit to you that you are compartmentalizing YOUR world-views and models from one another, in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape YOUR discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

 

[ding]

Was that the best you could do at mocking it? Try again....

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else.

I hope your level of intelligence isn't the pinnacle.

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I think CZERNOBOG is.

He isn't.

You aren't objective on this.

I believe I am as he has not proven that my beliefs are irrational... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Can you tell me what was rational and what was irrational and why?

 

[ding]

I hope your level of intelligence isn't the pinnacle.

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I think CZERNOBOG is.

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

 

[Mudda]

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I think CZERNOBOG is.

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

 

[ding]

I think CZERNOBOG is.

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

 

[sealybobo]

I hope your level of intelligence isn't the pinnacle.

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I think CZERNOBOG is.

He isn't.

You aren't objective on this.

I believe I am as he has not proven that my beliefs are irrational... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Can you tell me what was rational and what was irrational and why?

God is just as good a guess as anything else yes I agree.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I think CZERNOBOG is.

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

 

[hobelim]

I deon't care if you disagree, or not. Personal attacks are personal attacks. They don't bother me in the least.

You mean you didn't come here looking for a fight?

No, I didn't. I came here for a discussion, anda debate. It's too bad you don't know the difference.

Rather than argue or defend he's resorting to making us feel bad for attacking their illogical position

Don't fall for that. The illogical positions that he has allowed to enter his mind and perpetuate are the root cause for the unspeakable suffering, persecution, torture, and death of billions of people over thousands of years...


If he feels bad when you point out the great errors he has made in his speculations, you shouldn't. You are actually doing him a favor. Even ancient goat herders ridiculed the irrational beliefs of idolators without compunction. Have some faith...lol

He has every right to maintain them and I see that you respect that right but he has some audacity to expect you or anybody to respect his illogical beliefs that a three in one edible mangod poofed the universe into existence and then 13 billion years later impregnated a 14 year old virgin to father himself without a human father so that he could become fully human and fully God....

They really do defile and contaminate the mind. The evidence is overwhelming.

Which beliefs are illogical? The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Why are you arguing against God?

God is not just as good an answer as anything else when your beliefs about an edible triune mangod are themselves fundamentally illogical and do not correspond to any real living being ever in existence...

You might as well be claiming that a three headed leprechaun did it.

 

[ding]

You mean you didn't come here looking for a fight?

No, I didn't. I came here for a discussion, anda debate. It's too bad you don't know the difference.

Rather than argue or defend he's resorting to making us feel bad for attacking their illogical position

Don't fall for that. The illogical positions that he has allowed to enter his mind and perpetuate are the root cause for the unspeakable suffering, persecution, torture, and death of billions of people over thousands of years...


If he feels bad when you point out the great errors he has made in his speculations, you shouldn't. You are actually doing him a favor. Even ancient goat herders ridiculed the irrational beliefs of idolators without compunction. Have some faith...lol

He has every right to maintain them and I see that you respect that right but he has some audacity to expect you or anybody to respect his illogical beliefs that a three in one edible mangod poofed the universe into existence and then 13 billion years later impregnated a 14 year old virgin to father himself without a human father so that he could become fully human and fully God....

They really do defile and contaminate the mind. The evidence is overwhelming.

Which beliefs are illogical? The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Why are you arguing against God?

God is not just as good an answer as anything else when your beliefs about an edible triune mangod are themselves fundamentally illogical and do not correspond to any real living being ever in existence...

You might as well be claiming that a three headed leprechaun did it.

But I'm not. I'm claiming God did and you are arguing with me about it rather than those who would mock you for your belief.

 

[ding]

I think CZERNOBOG is.

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

There's no such thing.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that you are more intelligent than me?

I think CZERNOBOG is.

He isn't.

You aren't objective on this.

I believe I am as he has not proven that my beliefs are irrational... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Can you tell me what was rational and what was irrational and why?

God is just as good a guess as anything else yes I agree.

That's funny because you haven't been acting like it.

 

[sealybobo]

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

There's no such thing.

You are sure there is a god and you are sure there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. You just aren't smart bra.

 

[sealybobo]

I think CZERNOBOG is.

He isn't.

You aren't objective on this.

I believe I am as he has not proven that my beliefs are irrational... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Can you tell me what was rational and what was irrational and why?

God is just as good a guess as anything else yes I agree.

That's funny because you haven't been acting like it.

A guess. Not a theory. Maybe a hypothesis.

 

[ding]

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

There's no such thing.

You are sure there is a god and you are sure there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. You just aren't smart bra.

I'm pretty sure I am smarter than you, and I'm pretty sure there is a Creator and I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. I have a basis / reason for having these beliefs and they are based upon observation and logic I am always open to new information, but since I have given these subjects considerably more thought than most, I don't usually find positions I have not already evaluated and considered. Seems smart enough to me. What do you think?

 

[ding]

He isn't.

You aren't objective on this.

I believe I am as he has not proven that my beliefs are irrational... The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. Thus the universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. Can you tell me what was rational and what was irrational and why?

God is just as good a guess as anything else yes I agree.

That's funny because you haven't been acting like it.

A guess. Not a theory. Maybe a hypothesis.

You haven't been acting like that either.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
how could you ...

it is recorded history and clearly you have no repentance for your religions awfulness, just an appealing way for you to spend your "free" time. your proud to have taught her your opinion of a free Spirit.

ummmm... that had nothing to do with your prior comment. I see you attacking Christianity. Like a militant atheist would. You have never acknowledged what your belief system is, as near as I can tell you are a humanist, but I have no clue. For some odd reason you have attached yourself to me.

.

I see you attacking Christianity.

only 4th century christianity, what it was before then and up to that time was entirely different than what they and you have made it - I have told you before, the religion of the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the true religion of antiquity. your sideshow is a fallacy.

I don't live in the 4th century. Are you a humanist?

.

you quote their bible, you are a 4th century christian, a fraud.

So what Bible do you quote?

.

So what Bible do you quote?

the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book

 

[ding]

ummmm... that had nothing to do with your prior comment. I see you attacking Christianity. Like a militant atheist would. You have never acknowledged what your belief system is, as near as I can tell you are a humanist, but I have no clue. For some odd reason you have attached yourself to me.

.

I see you attacking Christianity.

only 4th century christianity, what it was before then and up to that time was entirely different than what they and you have made it - I have told you before, the religion of the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the true religion of antiquity. your sideshow is a fallacy.

I don't live in the 4th century. Are you a humanist?

.

you quote their bible, you are a 4th century christian, a fraud.

So what Bible do you quote?

.

So what Bible do you quote?

the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

 

[Czernobog]

Which of my beliefs are irrational? That the universe had a beginning?

Yes. When you hold dogmatically to the position that the universe must have had a beginning, that is irrational, particularly when you have been presented, repeatedly, with a perfectly sound theory of the origin of the universe that required no such beginning point.

That what started it is beyond science?

Yes. That is irrational. It presumes that an outside force started the universe, like one jump starts a car, with absolutely no evidence. Any belief for which there is no rational evidence is, by definition, irrational.

That what happened after it can be studied?

No. That's not irrational.

That the universe became self aware?

Yes, that is quite irrational. "The Universe" is an vast collection inanimate objects. It is not alive. It has no consciousness. It cannot become "self-aware"

That intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter?

That is not only irrational, but scientifically unsound. Matter neither evolves, nor has consciousness, let alone intelligence. Does a rock have intelligence? Does a grain of sand have intelligence? No. To suggest that matter has intelligence is the pinnacle of irrational thinking.

That a 1st Cause is required?

Yes. That is irrational. First, you can see my point to your first irrational claim. Second, without resorting to special pleading (a logical fallacy) every cause requires a preceding cause. When a belief requires a logical fallacy to make it work, it is, by definition, illogical, and therefore, irrational.

So, yes. You hold to a plethora of irrational beliefs.