Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[G.T.]

Now define God

I would be shocked if you ever had one atheist attempt to answer that question.

The fact that they can’t proves they have never seriously considered the possibility of God existing.

Thats super goofy, and biased.

The correct approach to any belief, before being presented with a case/argument... is the null hypothesis.

Since atheists arent the ones positing Gods, i.e. the "positive" case then which party is it up to...to define the God they're asserting exists?

The one(s) making the assertion.

Thats just common sense.


YOURE saying x...exists.

YOU define x, then.

Herpaaaaderp

No. The correct approach is to identify the possible options and systematically work through each option. Something you haven’t done.

Thats what I have done, and that is the correct approach. Ive said as much.

You demand like a nance that anyone who doesnt reach your conclusion is somehow not looking.

Thats your asinine personality on the internet. Insufferable, and a complete waste

Not true. No one, including yourself, has been able to explain the definition of God they used in their analysis. This is why I say they have never made any attempt.

I didnt define God in any analysis...in fact, I dont even discuss these things openly with YOU...let alone is it up to the CROSS EXAMINER to define what the one making the case uses as their Deity's definition. Thats retarded.

 

[ding]

I would be shocked if you ever had one atheist attempt to answer that question.

The fact that they can’t proves they have never seriously considered the possibility of God existing.

Thats super goofy, and biased.

The correct approach to any belief, before being presented with a case/argument... is the null hypothesis.

Since atheists arent the ones positing Gods, i.e. the "positive" case then which party is it up to...to define the God they're asserting exists?

The one(s) making the assertion.

Thats just common sense.


YOURE saying x...exists.

YOU define x, then.

Herpaaaaderp

No. The correct approach is to identify the possible options and systematically work through each option. Something you haven’t done.

Thats what I have done, and that is the correct approach. Ive said as much.

You demand like a nance that anyone who doesnt reach your conclusion is somehow not looking.

Thats your asinine personality on the internet. Insufferable, and a complete waste

Not true. No one, including yourself, has been able to explain the definition of God they used in their analysis. This is why I say they have never made any attempt.

I didnt define God in any analysis...in fact, I dont even discuss these things openly with YOU...let alone is it up to the CROSS EXAMINER to define what the one making the case uses as their Deity's definition. Thats retarded.

That’s your call.

My call is to keep pointing out that people like you have never seriously considered the evidence at their disposal because their minds are already made up because of their own logical fallacies like God is a sky daddy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look, I am betting we both agree that there is a humongous amount we don't know.

And here comes the magic...

 

[G.T.]

Thats super goofy, and biased.

The correct approach to any belief, before being presented with a case/argument... is the null hypothesis.

Since atheists arent the ones positing Gods, i.e. the "positive" case then which party is it up to...to define the God they're asserting exists?

The one(s) making the assertion.

Thats just common sense.


YOURE saying x...exists.

YOU define x, then.

Herpaaaaderp

No. The correct approach is to identify the possible options and systematically work through each option. Something you haven’t done.

Thats what I have done, and that is the correct approach. Ive said as much.

You demand like a nance that anyone who doesnt reach your conclusion is somehow not looking.

Thats your asinine personality on the internet. Insufferable, and a complete waste

Not true. No one, including yourself, has been able to explain the definition of God they used in their analysis. This is why I say they have never made any attempt.

I didnt define God in any analysis...in fact, I dont even discuss these things openly with YOU...let alone is it up to the CROSS EXAMINER to define what the one making the case uses as their Deity's definition. Thats retarded.

That’s your call.

My call is to keep pointing out that people like you have never seriously considered the evidence at their disposal because their minds are already made up because of their own logical fallacies like God is a sky daddy.

Thats your assertion...a mere speculative and twatty opinion from some knowitall in the internet.

Meanwhile, most real God debates happen verbally. Not for 57 paragraph posting gish gallopers on the internet that make more unsupported assertions than a jockless ball player with a boner.

 

[ding]

Look, I am betting we both agree that there is a humongous amount we don't know.

And here comes the magic...

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

 

[ding]

No. The correct approach is to identify the possible options and systematically work through each option. Something you haven’t done.

Thats what I have done, and that is the correct approach. Ive said as much.

You demand like a nance that anyone who doesnt reach your conclusion is somehow not looking.

Thats your asinine personality on the internet. Insufferable, and a complete waste

Not true. No one, including yourself, has been able to explain the definition of God they used in their analysis. This is why I say they have never made any attempt.

I didnt define God in any analysis...in fact, I dont even discuss these things openly with YOU...let alone is it up to the CROSS EXAMINER to define what the one making the case uses as their Deity's definition. Thats retarded.

That’s your call.

My call is to keep pointing out that people like you have never seriously considered the evidence at their disposal because their minds are already made up because of their own logical fallacies like God is a sky daddy.

Thats your assertion...a mere speculative and twatty opinion from some knowitall in the internet.

Meanwhile, most real God debates happen verbally. Not for 57 paragraph posting gish gallopers on the internet that make more unsupported assertions than a jockless ball player with a boner.

A post you can’t refute.

 

[G.T.]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

 

[G.T.]

Thats what I have done, and that is the correct approach. Ive said as much.

You demand like a nance that anyone who doesnt reach your conclusion is somehow not looking.

Thats your asinine personality on the internet. Insufferable, and a complete waste

Not true. No one, including yourself, has been able to explain the definition of God they used in their analysis. This is why I say they have never made any attempt.

I didnt define God in any analysis...in fact, I dont even discuss these things openly with YOU...let alone is it up to the CROSS EXAMINER to define what the one making the case uses as their Deity's definition. Thats retarded.

That’s your call.

My call is to keep pointing out that people like you have never seriously considered the evidence at their disposal because their minds are already made up because of their own logical fallacies like God is a sky daddy.

Thats your assertion...a mere speculative and twatty opinion from some knowitall in the internet.

Meanwhile, most real God debates happen verbally. Not for 57 paragraph posting gish gallopers on the internet that make more unsupported assertions than a jockless ball player with a boner.

A post you can’t refute.

Hurr dee durrr is the sound I hear when you post ...and for whatever reason, its not compelling enough to have an argument. Stick with Taz, bro.

 

[ding]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

No. You believe I believe in a sky daddy. I believe in something beyond energy and matter. I believe that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time is the source or matrix of the material world.

Your only response to that is sky daddy and magic.

 

[ding]

Not true. No one, including yourself, has been able to explain the definition of God they used in their analysis. This is why I say they have never made any attempt.

I didnt define God in any analysis...in fact, I dont even discuss these things openly with YOU...let alone is it up to the CROSS EXAMINER to define what the one making the case uses as their Deity's definition. Thats retarded.

That’s your call.

My call is to keep pointing out that people like you have never seriously considered the evidence at their disposal because their minds are already made up because of their own logical fallacies like God is a sky daddy.

Thats your assertion...a mere speculative and twatty opinion from some knowitall in the internet.

Meanwhile, most real God debates happen verbally. Not for 57 paragraph posting gish gallopers on the internet that make more unsupported assertions than a jockless ball player with a boner.

A post you can’t refute.

Hurr dee durrr is the sound I hear when you post ...and for whatever reason, its not compelling enough to have an argument. Stick with Taz, bro.

Your call, bro.

 

[diver52]

You didn't complete the sentence. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" When the government establishes preference of one religion over another, then it is establishing religion. When it forces people (especially school children who are required to be there) to participate in a religion they do not share, they are being prohibited their right to the free exercise of their religion.

Note I addressed that in the previous sentence. The Warren Court erred by not insisting that all religion enter the public square (public schools). Preventing any is not the same as opening it to all.

Which is why you are wrong. All religion is chaos and you turn the schools into a battleground of constantly conflicting beliefs. That is not the purpose of schools. The only approach is to keep religion out entirely. Which is not the same as banning prayer, which has never been done. Just the imposition of prayer.

 

[ding]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

Genesis was never intended to be read literally. Never. The fact that you read it literally has more to do with your bias than anything else. It’s not that you aren’t capable of interpreting it for knowledge it’s that you don’t want to interpret it for knowledge. That’s on you.

 

[G.T.]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

No. You believe I believe in a sky daddy. I believe in something beyond energy and matter. I believe that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time is the source or matrix of the material world.

Your only response to that is sky daddy and magic.

You believe in sky daddy, and youre embarrassed about it.

Its understandable, and I would be embarrassed too...sorta like if I believed in the Easter Bunny as a grown assed man. Same goes it for Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam. etc etc.

 

[Ringtone]

I get I am making no sense to you. Luckily, you are not on the Supreme Court.

More cryptic nonsense!

Before this you wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" When the government establishes preference of one religion over another, then it is establishing religion. When it forces people (especially school children who are required to be there) to participate in a religion they do not share, they are being prohibited their right to the free exercise of their religion.​

So is it unconstitutional to impose Christianity, for example, on other-religious or non-religious persons in the state schools or not?

Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state

 

[G.T.]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

Genesis was never intended to be read literally. Never. The fact that you read it literally has more to do with your bias than anything else. It’s not that you aren’t capable of interpreting it for knowledge it’s that you don’t want to interpret it for knowledge. That’s on you.

Sentence 1 failure.

I dont read it literally

See why youre a waste of time, dinguss? A gish gallop that was clueless as of its first sentence.

Thats....all your posts. You're unintelligent.

 

[Meriweather]

Religion is personal beliefs.

Public school is taxpayer funded.

Having teacher led prayers and shit in public school is OBVIOUSLY inappropriate.

Offering religion (any/all) Bible (Koran/Book of Mormon/etc) and the Philosophy of the Human Spirit is not at all inappropriate. I would argue that students should not be required to take such electives, but they certainly should not be prohibited from being in the curriculum.

 

[ding]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

No. You believe I believe in a sky daddy. I believe in something beyond energy and matter. I believe that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time is the source or matrix of the material world.

Your only response to that is sky daddy and magic.

You believe in sky daddy, and youre embarrassed about it.

Its understandable, and I wouod be embarrassed too...sorta like if I believed in the Easter Bunny as a grown assed man. Same goes it for Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam. etc etc.

No, GT. That’s your belief. I believe that an infinite regression is illogical. That there must be a first cause which is uncaused. Logically that must be something which is eternal and unchanging. Which means it must be beyond matter and energy.

 

[G.T.]

Religion is personal beliefs.

Public school is taxpayer funded.

Having teacher led prayers and shit in public school is OBVIOUSLY inappropriate.

Offering religion (any/all) Bible (Koran/Book of Mormon/etc) and the Philosophy of the Human Spirit is not at all inappropriate. I would argue that students should not be required to take such electives, but they certainly should not be prohibited from being in the curriculum.

They should not be put in the curriculum because the curriculum is paid for with public money. Thats already some method of force. You want them in the curriculum, do a fundraiser.

 

[G.T.]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

No. You believe I believe in a sky daddy. I believe in something beyond energy and matter. I believe that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time is the source or matrix of the material world.

Your only response to that is sky daddy and magic.

You believe in sky daddy, and youre embarrassed about it.

Its understandable, and I wouod be embarrassed too...sorta like if I believed in the Easter Bunny as a grown assed man. Same goes it for Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam. etc etc.

No, GT. That’s your belief. I believe that an infinite regression is illogical. That there must be a first cause which is uncaused. Logically that must be something which is eternal and unchanging. Which means it must be beyond matter and energy.

No. ding..I dont believe in a sky daddy and just because you think hes a mind doesnt make him not a sky daddy, and ive already seen you say that you believe that jesus died and came back so...yeah thats magical fairy crap thats unsupported.. cool story.. guess youve pivoted.

 

[ding]

Right on cue.

The only one invoking magic are the atheists.

You believe in a sky daddy, and youre so embarrassed about it that you feign embarrassment that anyone would possibly ever take your bible literally.

DUHHH!!!!!!

its made up.

Genesis was never intended to be read literally. Never. The fact that you read it literally has more to do with your bias than anything else. It’s not that you aren’t capable of interpreting it for knowledge it’s that you don’t want to interpret it for knowledge. That’s on you.

Sentence 1 failure.

I dont read it literally

See why youre a waste of time, dinguss? A gish gallop that was clueless as of its first sentence.

Thats....all your posts. You're unintelligent.

If you don’t read it literally then why would you think I would be embarrassed if someone else read it literally?

Are you embarrassed by others that read it literally?

You would rather others read it literally than have to contend with me explaining what it means.