Zone1 Is Atheism Depressing?

[forkup]

Why is he asking for your belief/faith?

I don't know. Because he's a jealous little son of a bitch?

That, or more likely. He doesn't exist, and whoever Moses is, figured that if he wanted to be a leader of a group of people, having big papa in the sky endorse him as his spokesperson would be helpful

 

[forkup]

It's not my job to convince you. You said you were looking for signs. I gave you the first and 2nd sign. You dismissed them both. Why should I waste my time arguing about it?

We're talking to strangers on a forum. "Wasting time" is kind off a given.

 

[BreezeWood]

What percent of bible belt Christians do you estimate are Klan members?

all of them ...

including flops ... that's who wrote the 4th century christian bible - nothing to do with what jesus taught or those who gave their lives during that time. do try and keep up.

 

[BreezeWood]

e=mc^2 says otherwise.

But feel free to post a link to your BS boomerang theory.

yours first - pop corn from nothing.

how is the transfer from energy to matter and visa versa not cyclical ...

 

[ding]

This is the entire purpose of religion.

In the book "Everything is Fucked" Mark Manson has a whole section on "How to start your own religion"

Step One is to Sell hope to the Hopeless

According to the Darwinian principle of natural selection, if belief in a higher power didn't offer an actual functional advantage it would have disappeared long ago.

 

[forkup]

Why? Because you are not listening. And, you can figure it out for yourself if you weren't gung-ho determined not to believe. But I'll give you two hints: In Hebrew, 'earth' does not refer to the entire planet. The earth in your backyard could be flooded without the flood covering the planet Earth. In Hebrew a heavy vertical rain can also cover/flood one's sight of hills and mountains.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246609/jewish/The-Story-of-Noah-and-the-Ark-in-the-Bible.htm

The Hebrew speakers don't seem to agree. But please do tell me again, how my intellectual honesty is dependent on learning an entirely new language to talk to you on forum.

 

[ding]

We're talking to strangers on a forum. "Wasting time" is kind off a given.

Maybe for you. Not for me. My point was made in posts 165, 168, 178-181 and 186. My obligation has been met. Couldn't care less what you do with it.

 

[forkup]

I said find first. Once you have found, only then will questions have some intelligence behind them.

Intelligence like "don't question what you believe?"

I think you kind of alluded to being a teacher of some sort? Something tells me that you wouldn't accept the reasoning you're applying in any student or probably to you in any setting besides religion. At least I hope so.

 

[forkup]

Maybe for you. Not for me. My point was made in posts 165, 168, 178-181 and 186. My obligation has been met. Couldn't care less what you do with it.

What point?

Define what you are looking for.

My answer

As for defining what I would accept as God. Some form of Supreme being with de facto unlimited power.

Your questions.

So what evidence would you expect to find for the existence of some form of Supreme being with de facto unlimited power?

But it's YOUR perception/definition of God that matters, right? Because YOU can't possibly find the evidence YOU are looking for if YOU don't even have some perception of what YOU are looking for.

My answer

It's on you to provide the evidence for it, since you feel you have good reason to believe it.

Neither did I. I studied the evidence we have at our disposal (the creation and evolution of existence) to answer the question of was the universe created to produce intelligence intentionally? Or was it happenstance.

That's great. What evidence?

I see you posing me questions a lot in the posts you state. What I don't see, not once, is you supporting YOUR assertions in any way. So, I guess you feel your obligations are minimal in a discussion.

 

[ding]

What point?

My answer

Your questions.



My answer



That's great. What evidence?

I see you posing me questions a lot in the posts you state. What I don't see, not once, is you supporting YOUR assertions in any way. So, I guess you feel your obligations are minimal in a discussion.

See posts 165, 168, 178-181 and 186.

 

[forkup]

See posts 165, 168, 178-181 and 186.

I did. I quoted directly from EACH AND EVERY ONE.

 

[ding]

I did. I quoted directly from EACH AND EVERY ONE.

Now go back and re-read post #265.

 

[forkup]

Now go back and re-read post #265.

This one you mean.

There is no evidence you will accept. You dismiss it all. Your mind is made up.

My answer.

Who says? I'm the guy who told you flat out I changed my position on morality. I can change my mind. I do require convincing.

So again. You feel you have no obligation to give a reason to believe to me, because you go by the DEMONSTRABLY FALSE claim I can't be convinced.

I'll tell you what I think. You know you don't have convincing arguments and as such you simply hope that you can get away with epistemological tricks to convince yourself that it's a draw.

 

[ding]

This one you mean.

My answer.

So again. You feel you have no obligation to give a reason to believe to me, because you go by the DEMONSTRABLY FALSE claim I can't be convinced.

I'll tell you what I think. You know you don't have convincing arguments and as such you simply hope that you can get away with epistemological tricks to convince yourself that it's a draw.

My obligation has been satisfied. What you do with that information is up to you. This is very similar to our conversation on absolute vs relative morality. You argued for relative morals, I made the case that morals are based upon logic and are thus absolute and eventually you adopted that argument. Same here. I made my argument, the ball is now in your court. I couldn't care less what you decide.

 

[forkup]

My obligation has been satisfied. What you do with that information is up to you. This is very similar to our conversation on absolute vs relative morality. You argued for relative morals, I made the case that morals are based upon logic and are thus absolute and eventually you adopted that argument. Same here. I made my argument, the ball is now in your court. I couldn't care less what you decide.

What you do with that information is up to you.

You provided no information. You just asked me about my position. If that you is your only obligation in a discussion, YOU ARE A COWARD. And now I'm done with wasting my time.

 

[ding]

You provided no information. You just asked me about my position. If that you is your only obligation in a discussion, YOU ARE A COWARD. And now I'm done with wasting my time.

I'm not going to argue with you about it. I've already won.

 

[ding]

yours first - pop corn from nothing.

how is the transfer from energy to matter and visa versa not cyclical ...

It's not "technically" nothing. The universe was not created from PRE-EXISTING matter. Quantum fields are not nothing. They are probabilities/potential.

Because the universe was not created from pre-existing matter so there is no cycle.