Atheism and it's Scientific Pretensions

[sealybobo]

Wow! Look at the typically vapid blather of evolutionists in the face profundity they have neither the learning or the brains to grasp.

Would you please share your educational background or experience so we can judge if you have the learning to determine vapidity.

I'm brilliant, but it doesn't take a genius to distinguish the difference between ad hominem and a genuine argument that demonstrates an understanding of the issues Berlinski is raising. Coloradomtnman didn't proffer his credentials, just an ad hominem. See the problem?

The matter's open to discuss, so discuss . . . or not. So far, as usual, the atheists aren't discussing, just mocking, as that's typically all they ever really do on this forum.

But if you must know, I'm a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out, and I'm easily the reigning authority on abiogenesis on this forum. Moreover, I have a respectable background in the history of ideas and events, logistics, philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics.

But none of that really matters in a friendly discussion.

Lets hear your elevator pitch on why you believe in god(s).

No. Let's hear your counterargument to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin, which none of you have ever even attempted to counter, no doubt, because none of you grasp the implications: Prufrock s Cave

I'm still waiting on the you silly atheists to grasp the fact that your metaphysical apriority is not scientifically falsifiable.

1. Don't forget, it is the GOP that worships Ayn Rand so don't argue with us liberal progressive atheists. Being an atheists doesn't mean you can't be an asshole.

2. Do you expect me to read all that drivel? I read enough. If your argument why you are right is somethng you can't even explain yourself, why should I bother to readd/study/dissect/pick it apart/explain how/why/when/where your liink is wrong?

Please give us your elevator pitch on what that link is even saying and why you think it is proof a god exists. It may be proof we can't prove a god doesn't exist, but that isn't enough. It isn't on us to prove your imaginary friend isn't real. Why don't you go prove to the Jews your god is real. What do they say? Same thing us Atheists say. Same thing the Muslims say. Jesus was just a nice guy.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Wow! Look at the typically vapid blather of evolutionists in the face profundity they have neither the learning or the brains to grasp.

Would you please share your educational background or experience so we can judge if you have the learning to determine vapidity.

I'm brilliant, but it doesn't take a genius to distinguish the difference between ad hominem and a genuine argument that demonstrates an understanding of the issues Berlinski is raising. Coloradomtnman didn't proffer his credentials, just an ad hominem. See the problem?

The matter's open to discuss, so discuss . . . or not. So far, as usual, the atheists aren't discussing, just mocking, as that's typically all they ever really do on this forum.

But if you must know, I'm a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out, and I'm easily the reigning authority on abiogenesis on this forum. Moreover, I have a respectable background in the history of ideas and events, logistics, philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics.

But none of that really matters in a friendly discussion.

Lets hear your elevator pitch on why you believe in god(s).

No. Let's hear your counterargument to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin, which none of you have ever even attempted to counter, no doubt, because none of you grasp the implications: Prufrock s Cave

I'm still waiting on the you silly atheists to grasp the fact that your metaphysical apriority is not scientifically falsifiable.

1. Don't forget, it is the GOP that worships Ayn Rand so don't argue with us liberal progressive atheists. Being an atheists doesn't mean you can't be an asshole.

2. Do you expect me to read all that drivel? I read enough. If your argument why you are right is somethng you can't even explain yourself, why should I bother to readd/study/dissect/pick it apart/explain how/why/when/where your liink is wrong?

Please give us your elevator pitch on what that link is even saying and why you think it is proof a god exists. It may be proof we can't prove a god doesn't exist, but that isn't enough. It isn't on us to prove your imaginary friend isn't real. Why don't you go prove to the Jews your god is real. What do they say? Same thing us Atheists say. Same thing the Muslims say. Jesus was just a nice guy.

Why are you asking me these questions? You asked my why I believe God exists. I gave you the logical proof for God's existence, which, by the way, is universally apparent to all.

In response to that you write: "Do you expect me to read all that drivel?" as you stupidly insinuate that the very same logical proof for God's existence, which is universally apparent to all, asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Locke . . . is inexplicable.

Then you ask me to state it again.

You're not making a lot of sense, are you?

Now take your light-weight intellect that can't or won't wrap itself around the argument and shove off. In other words, I won't entertain any more posts from you in which you fail to objectively and accurately state what that argument is.

Check?

 

[sealybobo]

Wow! Look at the typically vapid blather of evolutionists in the face profundity they have neither the learning or the brains to grasp.

Would you please share your educational background or experience so we can judge if you have the learning to determine vapidity.

I'm brilliant, but it doesn't take a genius to distinguish the difference between ad hominem and a genuine argument that demonstrates an understanding of the issues Berlinski is raising. Coloradomtnman didn't proffer his credentials, just an ad hominem. See the problem?

The matter's open to discuss, so discuss . . . or not. So far, as usual, the atheists aren't discussing, just mocking, as that's typically all they ever really do on this forum.

But if you must know, I'm a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out, and I'm easily the reigning authority on abiogenesis on this forum. Moreover, I have a respectable background in the history of ideas and events, logistics, philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics.

But none of that really matters in a friendly discussion.

Lets hear your elevator pitch on why you believe in god(s).

No. Let's hear your counterargument to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin, which none of you have ever even attempted to counter, no doubt, because none of you grasp the implications: Prufrock s Cave

I'm still waiting on the you silly atheists to grasp the fact that your metaphysical apriority is not scientifically falsifiable.

1. Don't forget, it is the GOP that worships Ayn Rand so don't argue with us liberal progressive atheists. Being an atheists doesn't mean you can't be an asshole.

2. Do you expect me to read all that drivel? I read enough. If your argument why you are right is somethng you can't even explain yourself, why should I bother to readd/study/dissect/pick it apart/explain how/why/when/where your liink is wrong?

Please give us your elevator pitch on what that link is even saying and why you think it is proof a god exists. It may be proof we can't prove a god doesn't exist, but that isn't enough. It isn't on us to prove your imaginary friend isn't real. Why don't you go prove to the Jews your god is real. What do they say? Same thing us Atheists say. Same thing the Muslims say. Jesus was just a nice guy.

Why are you asking me these questions? You asked my why I believe God exists. I gave you the logical proof for God's existence, which, by the way, is universally apparent to all.

In response to that you write: "Do you expect me to read all that drivel?" as you stupidly insinuate that the very same logical proof for God's existence, which is universally apparent to all, asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Locke . . . is inexplicable.

Then you ask me to state it again.

You're not making a lot of sense, are you?

Now take your light-weight intellect that can't or won't wrap itself around the argument and shove off. In other words, I won't entertain any more posts from you in which you fail to objectively and accurately state what that argument is.

Check?

Do you believe Joseph Smith talked to God? Why aren't you a Mormom? Do you believe the Koran? Why aren't you a muslim then? Why didn't all those Jews convert when Jesus came and showed them miracles?

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

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

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

 

[sealybobo]

Wow! Look at the typically vapid blather of evolutionists in the face profundity they have neither the learning or the brains to grasp.

Would you please share your educational background or experience so we can judge if you have the learning to determine vapidity.

I'm brilliant, but it doesn't take a genius to distinguish the difference between ad hominem and a genuine argument that demonstrates an understanding of the issues Berlinski is raising. Coloradomtnman didn't proffer his credentials, just an ad hominem. See the problem?

The matter's open to discuss, so discuss . . . or not. So far, as usual, the atheists aren't discussing, just mocking, as that's typically all they ever really do on this forum.

But if you must know, I'm a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out, and I'm easily the reigning authority on abiogenesis on this forum. Moreover, I have a respectable background in the history of ideas and events, logistics, philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics.

But none of that really matters in a friendly discussion.

Lets hear your elevator pitch on why you believe in god(s).

No. Let's hear your counterargument to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin, which none of you have ever even attempted to counter, no doubt, because none of you grasp the implications: Prufrock s Cave

I'm still waiting on the you silly atheists to grasp the fact that your metaphysical apriority is not scientifically falsifiable.

1. Don't forget, it is the GOP that worships Ayn Rand so don't argue with us liberal progressive atheists. Being an atheists doesn't mean you can't be an asshole.

2. Do you expect me to read all that drivel? I read enough. If your argument why you are right is somethng you can't even explain yourself, why should I bother to readd/study/dissect/pick it apart/explain how/why/when/where your liink is wrong?

Please give us your elevator pitch on what that link is even saying and why you think it is proof a god exists. It may be proof we can't prove a god doesn't exist, but that isn't enough. It isn't on us to prove your imaginary friend isn't real. Why don't you go prove to the Jews your god is real. What do they say? Same thing us Atheists say. Same thing the Muslims say. Jesus was just a nice guy.

Why are you asking me these questions? You asked my why I believe God exists. I gave you the logical proof for God's existence, which, by the way, is universally apparent to all.

In response to that you write: "Do you expect me to read all that drivel?" as you stupidly insinuate that the very same logical proof for God's existence, which is universally apparent to all, asserted by the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Locke . . . is inexplicable.

Then you ask me to state it again.

You're not making a lot of sense, are you?

Now take your light-weight intellect that can't or won't wrap itself around the argument and shove off. In other words, I won't entertain any more posts from you in which you fail to objectively and accurately state what that argument is.

Check?

Who cares what they thought?

In the republic, Plato advocated censoring "any story," such as told "by Hesiod and Homer and the other poets," which "gives a bad image of the nature of the gods," portraying them as petty, devious, or "warring and plotting and fighting against each other." The Gods, in Plato's eyes, should only be represented as good, and pious, because it is the nature of divinity to be good.

Plato tells us what how he thinks the universe was created, but he warns us that his story is just a tale, because we being mortals could never understand. He says that the creator, created the universe from his likeness, out of the preexisting chaos (this is different from the Christian view that God created the universe out of void.

It also contradicts the theory that before the big bang nothing was here. So you want to use Plato as your expert?

IDIOT! LOL.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow! Look at the typically vapid blather of evolutionists in the face profundity they have neither the learning or the brains to grasp.

Would you please share your educational background or experience so we can judge if you have the learning to determine vapidity.

I'm brilliant, but it doesn't take a genius to distinguish the difference between ad hominem and a genuine argument that demonstrates an understanding of the issues Berlinski is raising. Coloradomtnman didn't proffer his credentials, just an ad hominem. See the problem?

The matter's open to discuss, so discuss . . . or not. So far, as usual, the atheists aren't discussing, just mocking, as that's typically all they ever really do on this forum.

But if you must know, I'm a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out, and I'm easily the reigning authority on abiogenesis on this forum. Moreover, I have a respectable background in the history of ideas and events, logistics, philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics.

But none of that really matters in a friendly discussion.

Lets hear your elevator pitch on why you believe in god(s).

No. Let's hear your counterargument to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin, which none of you have ever even attempted to counter, no doubt, because none of you grasp the implications: Prufrock s Cave

I'm still waiting on the you silly atheists to grasp the fact that your metaphysical apriority is not scientifically falsifiable.

What isn't falsifiable? Atheism is easily falsifiable by the appearance of God.

 

[sealybobo]

Wow! Look at the typically vapid blather of evolutionists in the face profundity they have neither the learning or the brains to grasp.

Would you please share your educational background or experience so we can judge if you have the learning to determine vapidity.

I'm brilliant, but it doesn't take a genius to distinguish the difference between ad hominem and a genuine argument that demonstrates an understanding of the issues Berlinski is raising. Coloradomtnman didn't proffer his credentials, just an ad hominem. See the problem?

The matter's open to discuss, so discuss . . . or not. So far, as usual, the atheists aren't discussing, just mocking, as that's typically all they ever really do on this forum.

But if you must know, I'm a former evolutionist who knows the science inside and out, and I'm easily the reigning authority on abiogenesis on this forum. Moreover, I have a respectable background in the history of ideas and events, logistics, philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics.

But none of that really matters in a friendly discussion.

Lets hear your elevator pitch on why you believe in god(s).

No. Let's hear your counterargument to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness relative to the problem of origin, which none of you have ever even attempted to counter, no doubt, because none of you grasp the implications: Prufrock s Cave

I'm still waiting on the you silly atheists to grasp the fact that your metaphysical apriority is not scientifically falsifiable.

What isn't falsifiable? Atheism is easily falsifiable by the appearance of God.

Or he could strike me down when I click on POST REPLY. Ready everyone? Here goes!!!

 

[sealybobo]

Nope. Still here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow! Look at the typically vapid blather of evolutionists in the face profundity they have neither the learning or the brains to grasp.

Do you really expect people to watch a 42 minute video in order to have a discussion about Berlinski? I mean, as a practical matter...