The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[M.D. Rawlings]

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Putty Hollie Down for The Seven Things

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

These are The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10193696/.



1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which is, of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. It's as simple as that.

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

My God! I just read this post after a nights sleep. It's riddled with errors. I guess that's what I get for writing things so late in the evening. Well, hopefully, folks got the gist of it.

Let's try this again. It should read:

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't know why you're denying God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place? That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist.

That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, you know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in your mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else did . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence. ​

 

[sealybobo]

Religion is not only allowed in our schools and government buildings, it is protected under the Constitution. This is the position paper from the ACLU and it is an accurate portrayal of how the law applies. Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools American Civil Liberties Union

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

No, but I think many of us can remember being in high school and often times the school would tread on our constitutional rights. For example, we weren't allowed to wear tank tops to school. Why not? Because the principle said so is why. No other explanation needed. Same as when you are at work. If the boss says you can't smoke, even though it is your right, he can fire you for smoking on the property. Turns out they can even fire you for just being a smoker. So if you are upsetting co workers with your religious talk, it could get you fired. Same as an employer could fire you just for being a liberal. I think it is called at will employment.

So you may have a constitutional right to do something but you aren't allowed to do it at work. I guess if the school is ok with her having a prayer at her desk it's cool with us. Just like she can pray if she wants too. Just don't try to get all the other kids to pray with you or you might offend someone.

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

I personally find your fascination with me to be little more than stalking.

 

[jillian]

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

No, but I think many of us can remember being in high school and often times the school would tread on our constitutional rights. For example, we weren't allowed to wear tank tops to school. Why not? Because the principle said so is why. No other explanation needed. Same as when you are at work. If the boss says you can't smoke, even though it is your right, he can fire you for smoking on the property. Turns out they can even fire you for just being a smoker. So if you are upsetting co workers with your religious talk, it could get you fired. Same as an employer could fire you just for being a liberal. I think it is called at will employment.

So you may have a constitutional right to do something but you aren't allowed to do it at work. I guess if the school is ok with her having a prayer at her desk it's cool with us. Just like she can pray if she wants too. Just don't try to get all the other kids to pray with you or you might offend someone.

you don't have a constitutional right to dress any way you want to at school. nor do you have an unrestricted right to free speech while in a school.

that's life..

unless you're a whining baby.

and why would you be surprised that adherants of the majority belief system would demand that they be favored.

that's why the constitution controls the theocrats. if the concept were popular with the majority adherants, we wouldn't need the constitution.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

 

[Hollie]

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. Simply.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exist in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. Simply.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course, the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

It does get old. You are something of a typical case demonstrating the dangers of religious extremism. I don't think you are even aware of just how nonsensical your comments are.. I think you are, like most religious zealots willing to pick and choose criteria in order to have the belief system that makes you feel good. If something stands in the way of your conclusion, you'll just ignore it and believe anyway. You're actually a lot more clueless than most in that you simply refuse to acknowledge there are serious problems with the blueprint (I know you think the bible is not the cornerstone of your beliefs, but without it, you would never heard of jeebus, so it is the blueprint of your beliefs, whether you want to acknowledge it or not). Most believers insist there's nothing wrong at all with the bibles.

 

[Hollie]

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

These are The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10193696/.

1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Thingsis is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

[1]And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". ​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that "it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not." So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. ​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

Everyone escapes,

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

What's interesting is your tacit admission to the failure of your argument. Your typically confused, self-refuting arguments are rife with you self-assessing that others have agreed with you, yet, it's clear that your backtracking and sidestepping the fact that you're unable to refute the dismantling of your viciously circular claims.

 

[Syriusly]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

What real arguments?

I was fairly clear from the beginning- I am an atheist- I don't believe in a god- any god- nothing more, nothing less.

I have no issues with you believing in what you want to believe- I just don't.

I objected to the attack by the OP on me- as an atheist- simply because I do not believe in what you believe.

I have no need to defend my lack of belief- and I see no reason why you need to defend your belief.

What I have noticed is that you- and others seem offended that I do not share your beliefs- and that is your problem- not mine.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

What real arguments?

I was fairly clear from the beginning- I am an atheist- I don't believe in a god- any god- nothing more, nothing less.

I have no issues with you believing in what you want to believe- I just don't.

I objected to the attack by the OP on me- as an atheist- simply because I do not believe in what you believe.

I have no need to defend my lack of belief- and I see no reason why you need to defend your belief.

What I have noticed is that you- and others seem offended that I do not share your beliefs- and that is your problem- not mine.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

What real arguments?

I was fairly clear from the beginning- I am an atheist- I don't believe in a god- any god- nothing more, nothing less.

I have no issues with you believing in what you want to believe- I just don't.

I objected to the attack by the OP on me- as an atheist- simply because I do not believe in what you believe.

I have no need to defend my lack of belief- and I see no reason why you need to defend your belief.

What I have noticed is that you- and others seem offended that I do not share your beliefs- and that is your problem- not mine.

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?

It's just a fact. There is no evidence for the existence of any of the gawds and no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that any gawds exist.

Really, sweety. Your screeching tirades are good for some comic relief but watching you constantly make a fool of yourself should be an embarrassment.


Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A ridiculous argument of unparalleled pointlesness.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

What real arguments?

I was fairly clear from the beginning- I am an atheist- I don't believe in a god- any god- nothing more, nothing less.

I have no issues with you believing in what you want to believe- I just don't.

I objected to the attack by the OP on me- as an atheist- simply because I do not believe in what you believe.

I have no need to defend my lack of belief- and I see no reason why you need to defend your belief.

What I have noticed is that you- and others seem offended that I do not share your beliefs- and that is your problem- not mine.

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?

It's just a fact. There is no evidence for the existence of any of the gawds and no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that any gawds exist.

Really, sweety. Your screeching tirades are good for some comic relief but watching you constantly make a fool of yourself should be an embarrassment.


Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A ridiculous argument of unparalleled pointlesness.

You're obtuse and silly if you think your bald declarations overthrow the axioms of the laws of human thought. You are ridiculous, for what you're ultimately claiming is pseudoscientific claptrap, which is nothing new for you and most of the atheists around here, that your metaphysical materialism is rationally or empirically verifiable, or is an established theory of science. You are mental, delusional.

 

[Steven_R]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

What real arguments?

I was fairly clear from the beginning- I am an atheist- I don't believe in a god- any god- nothing more, nothing less.

I have no issues with you believing in what you want to believe- I just don't.

I objected to the attack by the OP on me- as an atheist- simply because I do not believe in what you believe.

I have no need to defend my lack of belief- and I see no reason why you need to defend your belief.

What I have noticed is that you- and others seem offended that I do not share your beliefs- and that is your problem- not mine.

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?

It's just a fact. There is no evidence for the existence of any of the gawds and no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that any gawds exist.

Really, sweety. Your screeching tirades are good for some comic relief but watching you constantly make a fool of yourself should be an embarrassment.


Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A ridiculous argument of unparalleled pointlesness.

You're obtuse and silly if you think your bald declarations overthrow the axioms of the laws of human thought. You are ridiculous, for what you're ultimately claiming is pseudoscientific claptrap, which is nothing new for you and most of the atheists around here, that your metaphysical materialism is rationally or empirically verifiable, or is an established theory of science. You are mental, delusional.

You've got that turned around, angry fundie dude. Your really pointless arguments for supermagical gawds relies entirely on the most convoluted, disjointed and just plain pointless rattling I've ever come across. It relies entirely on the suspension of reason and rationality.

Like all claims to metaphysics, mysticism and magic, you face an impossible dilemma-- the religionist cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the Hindu gods or the porcelain god who is prayed to after a Frat party.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?​

 

[Hollie]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?​

It's just a fact. There is no evidence for the existence of any of the gawds and no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that any gawds exist.

Okay?

 

[Steven_R]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?​

So where exactly is the evidence for the supernatural that I'm supposed to use in science? God's never been observed, measured, quantified, or subjected to a falsifiable test. Let's ignore that for a moment. Assuming the supernatural is real, where do I put God in the lab? What variable do I use for God while I'm trying to balance a chemical equation? Where do I put God in a physics formula? We know all about GACT in DNA, but what's the chemical we use for God?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?​

So where exactly is the evidence for the supernatural that I'm supposed to use in science? God's never been observed, measured, quantified, or subjected to a falsifiable test. Let's ignore that for a moment. Assuming the supernatural is real, where do I put God in the lab? What variable do I use for God while I'm trying to balance a chemical equation? Where do I put God in a physics formula? We know all about GACT in DNA, but what's the chemical we use for God?

That's right. Science can't verify or falsify God's existence, can it? Just like it can't verify or falsify your metaphysics of materialism, can it? Science is a limited field of inquiry, isn't it? Doesn't even make a lick a sense to talk about God or your religion of materialism in terms of science, does it?

But, oh, looky here. There's not a shred of evidence whatsoever for the metaphysics of materialism, while there's tons of evidence for God's existence and logical, axiomatic proofs of human psychology supporting God's existence.

 

[Syriusly]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns. Mockery, name-calling, derision. . . . Their posts are boorish, personal crap that have nothing to do with anything that matters. Most atheists simply have nothing to offer of any substance at all on this forum concerning this issue: strictly soap opera baby talk. In other words, they run from the real arguments.

What real arguments?

I was fairly clear from the beginning- I am an atheist- I don't believe in a god- any god- nothing more, nothing less.

I have no issues with you believing in what you want to believe- I just don't.

I objected to the attack by the OP on me- as an atheist- simply because I do not believe in what you believe.

I have no need to defend my lack of belief- and I see no reason why you need to defend your belief.

What I have noticed is that you- and others seem offended that I do not share your beliefs- and that is your problem- not mine.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

You think you're going to dictate around here?

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?

 

[Syriusly]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.

It gets old. But it's not just Hollie. This is what happens on most of the religious threads. The atheists never really discuss the logical or scientific concerns.

That's two different arguments. The first is philosophy and sophistry and navel-gazing. One can engage in any number of logical arguments for or against the existence of the supernatural. The second simply has zero data concerning the existence of the supernatural and so discounts the influence of the supernatural in any scientific explanation of the natural world and natural phenomena.

I discount the existence of Jehovah because I see no more proof for the existence of Jehovah than I do for Odin or Zeus or Bigfoot.

No. See. That's doesn't work. You're making pseudoscientific baby talk. It's you, not I, doing magical "sophistry and navel-gazing." See. You've just never thought anything through in your life. You whole life has been an unexamined waste of time. You're unwittingly implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown the universal, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, that your religious belief that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative, the eternally existent ground of origin. Or you're implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts (Post #770)

What are you talking about? I have no problem with you believing . . . whatever, i.e., whatever personal, strictly subjective religious notion you please. Why would I argue over such things?

That's your opinion.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!​

If you want to believe that twaddle, then whatever gets your rocks off.

You believe whatever stuff you want to- I will choose not to believe that stuff- and we get along fine.