Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?
Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?
If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.
It seemed to me we had worked out the first three. I don't recall you disputing the idea that we exist and that the universe exists or at the very least that we have a real impression that the universe exists, whether the impression has real substance behind it or not, right? And I've just proven beyond any doubt that atheism necessarily means the recognition that God is a potentiality of ultimate origin that cannot be logically eliminated, so what's your beef? From there four and five follow. In your mind are we still stuck on three or is four the problem?
Uh. I don't know. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you resolve the bolded portion with this quote (from a previous wording of point 3):You did however admit that atheism is not rational because it flatly denies a potentiality that cannot be rationally denied to exist.
The wording on both of these is rather oblique (to me), but they seem to be saying the opposite thing.
Anyway, I don't know where you're going with that point. If the definition of the word 'atheist' isn't up for grabs, I'll accept the general proposition that we can't logically rule out the possibility that a god created the universe. Is that what you're looking for?
I don't know why some are having such a difficult time with this. Atheist = God doesn't exist. There's no room for quibbling about that. That's what the term means. a = no; theist = God. No God or God doesn't exist. So precisely what is the atheist saying does objectively exist in its own right, i.e., without him willing that it exist or impose itself on his mind? What is the thing that his rejection of the existence of God is based on? The answer to those questions is as axiomatically self-evident as 2 + 2 = 4.
Answer: The idea of God exists in its own right without him willing that it do so or impose itself on his mind every time he denies there be any substance behind it.
Answer: His rejection that there be any substance behind the idea is based on the evidence for God's existence: the universe.
Simple.
It follows that even the atheist knows that "we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe." The atheist denies God exists or created the universe in spite of this fact of logic. The only contradiction here is with the atheist, not me.
Simple.
So, 1, 2 and 3 are established.
You're a fucking idiot.
You're being too hard on the boy.
You’re just not understanding the M. Pompous Rawling theory of pointless argumentation.
As you already suggested, his arguments are perfectly circular:
RE A.
1. There is evidence for the gods.
How do we know this?
2. Because the universe exists.
And why is the existence of the universe evidence for your gods?
3. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
And why is the mere possibility of the existence of your gods, (or anyone else’s gods), evidence for the existence of the universe?
4. Because we can't logically rule out the possibility [of God's existence or] that a god created the universe.
Therefore:....
Simple.
A perfectly vicious circle. Simple from the mind of a simpleton.
How convenient.
NO that is not what he is saying
he is saying it can't be ruled out
God can neither be proven or disproven
He is trying to get to NEUTRAL
Can we get to NEUTRAL
that for God to represent the infinite and eternal which is beyond the scope of man
means God cannot be either proven or disproven
Can we please agree on that
and get to NEUTRAL
emilynghiem: Can we get to NEUTRAL
Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows. Next. Move on. What's the point? How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling. Did you get the atheism thing yet? It's so obvious. Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic? There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true. And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread. He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument. He admitted that too. So is this what you atheist do? Go in circles all the time? Get to ideas? When do you atheists ever do that? I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas. Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic? You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work. My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint. Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get. They ruin discussion. Will not let honest and objective discussion occur. Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either. Boring.
Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?
Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?
If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.
More of the same. No ideas, just endless personal crap. What a bunch of losers.
dblack: what about this atheist thing?
Rawlings: Idea of God in your mind - universe - evidence - it's your idea. 12-year-olds get this.
dblack: Hey, you SOB why are you talking about that?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Are you somehow confused about why folks can see you fundamentalists as unreasonable?Why do you fundies get so violently angry when your specious opinions are challenged?
Did you really expect to post your unsupported opinions about magic, spirit realms and supernatural agents with everyone else coming to a consensus that "the gods did it", was a meaningful expectation?
If you're not emotionally or intellectually prepared to defend your arguments, you should reconsider your participation in these types of threads.
More of the same. No ideas, just endless personal crap. What a bunch of losers.
dblack: what about this atheist thing?
Rawlings: Idea of God in your mind - universe - evidence - it's your idea. 12-year-olds get this.
dblack: Hey, you SOB why are you talking about that?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows. Next. Move on. What's the point? How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling. Did you get the atheism thing yet? It's so obvious. Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic? There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true. And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread. He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument. He admitted that too. So is this what you atheist do? Go in circles all the time? Get to ideas? When do you atheists ever do that? I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas. Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic? You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work. My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint. Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get. They ruin discussion. Will not let honest and objective discussion occur. Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either. Boring.
Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
.
Justin and I have never been anything but courteous ...
All species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
.
If the room has tools and materials and a human is in said room with a lion, the human will win.
To prove this, the earth is the room - the humans are at the top of the food chain but are nowhere near close to being so based on their physical strength.
GT: If the room has tools and materials ...
^ this is bad english manAll species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?No...your.post failed right from the beginning. I didnt use.human intelligence to explain human intelligence...I used evolution.
You waste to much time trying to make.invisible gotchas.
Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
.
If the room has tools and materials and a human is in said room with a lion, the human will win.
To prove this, the earth is the room - the humans are at the top of the food chain but are nowhere near close to being so based on their physical strength.
GT: If the room has tools and materials ...
your in company, Boss has never gotten it either -
are your tools and materials what gain for you your Admission to the Everlasting - the Lion ( obviously ) knows differently.
.
^ this is bad english manAll species evolve exactly the same and have the same mental acuity?Then you should be able to clearly show where our spirituality and humanity attributes are found in other life forms which were the product of the very same evolution process. Good luck with that.
We are not reading the same theory of evolution.
and when you put Boss in a room with a hungry Lion, what will he think ?
or not recognize the intelligence of all creatures including Flora as being a separation from their physiology.
.
If the room has tools and materials and a human is in said room with a lion, the human will win.
To prove this, the earth is the room - the humans are at the top of the food chain but are nowhere near close to being so based on their physical strength.
GT: If the room has tools and materials ...
your in company, Boss has never gotten it either -
are your tools and materials what gain for you your Admission to the Everlasting - the Lion ( obviously ) knows differently.
.
youll have to elaborate
Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
Aww, you're just angry because your pontificating couldn't mask your bankrupt arguments.Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
They're not changing. They're different facets of the same ideas. There are ramifications here that you've closed your mind to. They are profound, readily apparent to those paying attention. Ultimately, all of this goes to the universal, logical principle of identity and its ramifications, which are profound and have been shared here. The evidence overwhelming supports God's existence. It's not even close.
You might have had some interesting insights given your interest in the mind-brain dichotomy, but no . . . you wasted post after post quibbling, as if it were me. Get real. You might have gotten some insights from me on a number of things too had you not gone postal atheist.
I've annihilated argument after argument, but not so much as raised directly by any of you atheists around here. Atheists don't make arguments around here. They make noises. The vast majority of their posts are incoherent gibberish, personal attacks, lies. . . . Your tribe is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Mostly I've been talking to Justin. I can't do anything for dogmatic, fanatically closed-minded, pseudoscientific nitwits who don't even realize the bulk of what is coming out of their mouths, beginning with the irrationalism of their logic-defying premise, is inherently contradictory and self-negating.
One of your first posts on this thread made the amazing claim that there's no evidence for God's existence. Well, that obviously isn't true. In fact, that's silly on the very face it.
Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God can only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.
But you don’t believe that true, do you? GT knows because he’s got hammered by it, unwittingly charging into one argument after another that proved it. He just never saw it coming. He finally admitted that just because that’s true, it still couldn’t be proved by science, as if science had anything to do with the transcendent. Where we're you? Now he’s claiming that never happened. What a cretin. What kind of person lies to himself like that.
Newsflash for you, dblack: had you been paying attention you would know what happened here, that the imperatives regarding the problems or existence and origin couple with the classical proofs for God’s existence win every time logically. The only objection the atheist has is his pitiful, default position of what is in fact nothing more than metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically verifiable either and begs the question without a shred of evidence or a justifiable logical argument.
Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZLies ^
Aww, you're just angry because your pontificating couldn't mask your bankrupt arguments.Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
They're not changing. They're different facets of the same ideas. There are ramifications here that you've closed your mind to. They are profound, readily apparent to those paying attention. Ultimately, all of this goes to the universal, logical principle of identity and its ramifications, which are profound and have been shared here. The evidence overwhelming supports God's existence. It's not even close.
You might have had some interesting insights given your interest in the mind-brain dichotomy, but no . . . you wasted post after post quibbling, as if it were me. Get real. You might have gotten some insights from me on a number of things too had you not gone postal atheist.
I've annihilated argument after argument, but not so much as raised directly by any of you atheists around here. Atheists don't make arguments around here. They make noises. The vast majority of their posts are incoherent gibberish, personal attacks, lies. . . . Your tribe is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Mostly I've been talking to Justin. I can't do anything for dogmatic, fanatically closed-minded, pseudoscientific nitwits who don't even realize the bulk of what is coming out of their mouths, beginning with the irrationalism of their logic-defying premise, is inherently contradictory and self-negating.
One of your first posts on this thread made the amazing claim that there's no evidence for God's existence. Well, that obviously isn't true. In fact, that's silly on the very face it.
Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God can only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.
But you don’t believe that true, do you? GT knows because he’s got hammered by it, unwittingly charging into one argument after another that proved it. He just never saw it coming. He finally admitted that just because that’s true, it still couldn’t be proved by science, as if science had anything to do with the transcendent. Where we're you? Now he’s claiming that never happened. What a cretin. What kind of person lies to himself like that.
Newsflash for you, dblack: had you been paying attention you would know what happened here, that the imperatives regarding the problems or existence and origin couple with the classical proofs for God’s existence win every time logically. The only objection the atheist has is his pitiful, default position of what is in fact nothing more than metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically verifiable either and begs the question without a shred of evidence or a justifiable logical argument.
Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
As a rule, I've found that pompous blowhards who need to bolster their flagging self-esteem with bellicose pronouncements that they "annihilated" the arguments of others is typically a smokescreen for their failures snd inadequacies.
I
Got another moron on this board who doesn't even know what philosophy of science is. She thinks Hollie's a genius. How stupid is that? Bunch of boring, closedminded dimwits.
So, the five points thing was just an attempt to "disprove" atheism? With the assumption that doing so would "prove" theism, and thus function as a proof of God?
It has nothing to with disproving atheism, but you can't wait to close your mind to what follows. Next. Move on. What's the point? How about getting the points of each one the first without quibbling over definitions and then bitching at for quibbling. Did you get the atheism thing yet? It's so obvious. Is your atheism pure dogma that's runs from the logic? There's nothing in the five things that aren't logically true. And my point is that GT is a liar who has admitted that every one of the five things are logically true already on this thread. He also knows he couldn't disprove the transcendental argument. He admitted that too. So is this what you atheist do? Go in circles all the time? Get to ideas? When do you atheists ever do that? I don't have his expertise, but In the meantime Rawlings is writing profound ideas. Let me ask you a question. Why do you keep trying to use logic to refute what obviously cannot be logically refuted if you don't believe in logic? You seem to think you can make up your own logic that obviously doesn't work. My point is that all these other atheists idiots and liars. You disappoint. Rawlings said earlier that when any of these discussions it just atheists this is all ya get. They ruin discussion. Will not let honest and objective discussion occur. Well, I guess he right, although I thought you might have some good insights from atheist perspective about what you think is going given the logical truth of these things psychologically, but no you're just like rest. You can't be real about the obvious either. Boring.
Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
They rearrange the wording of one of those five things, dishonestly, and also extrapolate from them something not logical to extrapolate.
They also think it supports the TAG argument, which it does not.
1. I exist.
Supports the tag argument? No.
2. The Universe exists.
Supports the tag argument? Supports ANY & EVERY CREATION THEORY.
3. God is not disprovable.
Ok, not right now he is not, and right now he is also not provable. Supports the TAG? NO.
4. <INSERT ONE OF YOUR REARRANGED VERSIONS OF #4 HERE>
4 is where the real dishonesty has occurred. GT said that if an all knowing knower existed, than it's an axiom that they KNOW they're all knowing.
What they're attempting to dishonestly extrapolate from that, is the following:
-gt admits the all knowing knower EXISTS! (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that absolute knowledge needs a supreme mind as its source (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if god exists, god is necessarily an all knower (no, GT doesn't)
-gt admits that if an all knower exists, it is necessarily the creator of everything (no, GT doesnt)
It's very clear who the liars are, and also those who don't understand what they THINK they're trying to say.
