The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Hollie]

Nonsense. Gawds are an irrational assertion. There is nothing in logic that concludes supernaturalism, except in the warped mind of the hyper-religious crank.

Let's put you down for The Seven Things again, Hollie. . . .

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 Things is 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:

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.

Sorry, dear. This is the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense across multiple threads.

Doesn't that make you a desperate, pathetic zealot?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nonsense. Gawds are an irrational assertion. There is nothing in logic that concludes supernaturalism, except in the warped mind of the hyper-religious crank.

Let's put you down for The Seven Things again, Hollie. . . .

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 Things is 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:

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.

Sorry, dear. This is the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense across multiple threads.

Doesn't that make you a desperate, pathetic zealot?

Sorry, but your very own assertions and the logic thereof put you down for The Seven Things. All of those who can read and understand see that. These are the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin in any event, so suck it up, grab a glass of milk and cookies, and chill out. We got ya down.

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense. Gawds are an irrational assertion. There is nothing in logic that concludes supernaturalism, except in the warped mind of the hyper-religious crank.

Let's put you down for The Seven Things again, Hollie. . . .

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 Things is 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:

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.

Sorry, dear. This is the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense across multiple threads.

Doesn't that make you a desperate, pathetic zealot?

Sorry, but your very own assertions and the logic thereof put you down for The Seven Things. All of those who can read and understand see that. These are the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin in any event, so suck it up, grab a glass of milk and cookies, and chill out. We got ya down.

Sorry, but I provided a thorough refutation of seven fraudulent things. I even noted how your seven fraudulent things derived from your earlier five fraudulent things that was an even bigger disaster of viciously circular reasoning and false claims.

Your pathology of self-hate caused you to copy and paste your disaster of fraud and false claims into yet another thread. Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, like a buffoon?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Nonsense. Gawds are an irrational assertion. There is nothing in logic that concludes supernaturalism, except in the warped mind of the hyper-religious crank.

Let's put you down for The Seven Things again, Hollie. . . .

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 Things is 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:

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.

Sorry, dear. This is the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense across multiple threads.

Doesn't that make you a desperate, pathetic zealot?

Sorry, but your very own assertions and the logic thereof put you down for The Seven Things. All of those who can read and understand see that. These are the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin in any event, so suck it up, grab a glass of milk and cookies, and chill out. We got ya down.

Sorry, but I provided a thorough refutation of seven fraudulent things. I even noted how your seven fraudulent things derived from your earlier five fraudulent things that was an even bigger disaster of viciously circular reasoning and false claims.

Your pathology of self-hate caused you to copy and paste your disaster of fraud and false claims into yet another thread. Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, like a buffoon?

No sweat. We got ya down for The Seven Things. Now thank me for that and the milk and cookies.

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense. Gawds are an irrational assertion. There is nothing in logic that concludes supernaturalism, except in the warped mind of the hyper-religious crank.

Let's put you down for The Seven Things again, Hollie. . . .

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 Things is 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:

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.

Sorry, dear. This is the fourth time you have cut and pasted that nonsense across multiple threads.

Doesn't that make you a desperate, pathetic zealot?

Sorry, but your very own assertions and the logic thereof put you down for The Seven Things. All of those who can read and understand see that. These are the universally apparent, objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin in any event, so suck it up, grab a glass of milk and cookies, and chill out. We got ya down.

Sorry, but I provided a thorough refutation of seven fraudulent things. I even noted how your seven fraudulent things derived from your earlier five fraudulent things that was an even bigger disaster of viciously circular reasoning and false claims.

Your pathology of self-hate caused you to copy and paste your disaster of fraud and false claims into yet another thread. Doesn't that make you feel, at the very least, like a buffoon?

No sweat. We got ya down for The Seven Things. Now thank me for that and the milk and cookies.

You can thank me now or later for exposing your seven fraudulent things as a disaster of viciously circular reasoning and false claims. But then, you already knew that.

What happened, did you get a reprimand from your Jehovah's Witness prayer leader for not meeting your quota?

 

[Taz]

Something's that's always amused me about the whole theistic debate is if God's existence were irrefutable, like say the Sun's, ya wouldn't be asking if he existed in the first place. It's only when something doesn't exist, but people claim it does, that such a debate arises.

Well, if I understand you correctly, what always amuses me are the incoherently self-negating arguments of those who rail against the axioms regarding God's existence, which are readily self-evident, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, for if there be no actual substance of divinity behind these axioms, then all existents apparent to man are paradoxical, including the apparent existence of the star to which you referred.

You're equating an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen to ... the sun?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can disbelieve in the Sun all you want, but your disbelief wont protect you from lying out in your swimwear all afternoon long. Thus the Sun exists irrefutably.

God's existence though is entirely up for debate. No end of religions claiming to be worshipping some sort of divinity, and yet none of them ever bother offering proof. The existence of a holy text doesn't prove the existence of the god any more than "Twilight" proves the existence of vampires and shape-changers (dunno why they call them werewolves.)

If the God of the Bible does exist it's not worth worshipping because it never does anything. The point of submitting to a god tradiitonally is it did something you desired. In exchange for godly favors, you worshipped it and obeyed its rules. But gods today don't do anything. So why worship them? Simple, it's what you were raised and conditioned to do by both parents and society.

 

[Hollie]

Can disbelieve in the Sun all you want, but your disbelief wont protect you from lying out in your swimwear all afternoon long. Thus the Sun exists irrefutably.

God's existence though is entirely up for debate. No end of religions claiming to be worshipping some sort of divinity, and yet none of them ever bother offering proof. The existence of a holy text doesn't prove the existence of the god any more than "Twilight" proves the existence of vampires and shape-changers (dunno why they call them werewolves.)

If the God of the Bible does exist it's not worth worshipping because it never does anything. The point of submitting to a god tradiitonally is it did something you desired. In exchange for godly favors, you worshipped it and obeyed its rules. But gods today don't do anything. So why worship them? Simple, it's what you were raised and conditioned to do by both parents and society.

"The point of submitting to a god tradiitonally is it did something you desired. In exchange for godly favors,..."

In short, influence peddling.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can disbelieve in the Sun all you want, but your disbelief wont protect you from lying out in your swimwear all afternoon long. Thus the Sun exists irrefutably.

God's existence though is entirely up for debate. No end of religions claiming to be worshipping some sort of divinity, and yet none of them ever bother offering proof. The existence of a holy text doesn't prove the existence of the god any more than "Twilight" proves the existence of vampires and shape-changers (dunno why they call them werewolves.)

If the God of the Bible does exist it's not worth worshipping because it never does anything. The point of submitting to a god tradiitonally is it did something you desired. In exchange for godly favors, you worshipped it and obeyed its rules. But gods today don't do anything. So why worship them? Simple, it's what you were raised and conditioned to do by both parents and society.

"The point of submitting to a god tradiitonally is it did something you desired. In exchange for godly favors,..."

In short, influence peddling.

Was thinking more of rain as mentioned in certain prayers and life sustaining stuff like that.

"And it shall come to pass if you surely listen to the commandments

that I command you today

to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul,

That I will give rain to your land, the early and the late rains,
that you may gather in your grain, your wine and your oil.

And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle and you will eat and you will be satisfied."

- Jewish shema recited daily (except on the Sabbath.)

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You're equating an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen to ... the sun?

That's Really Weird

I don't know why you're asking me that question. You're the one, as I have shown, who keeps making arguments that are inherently contradictory, self-negate and, therefore, necessarily prove the opposite must be true!

The God axiom is a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology. That's indisputable. It's no different in nature or logical force than the mathematical axiom of 2 + 2 = 4. You believe that one to be true, don't you? Your dismissal of the God axiom is utterly arbitrary and irrational.

You keep arguing that God, Who by definition would necessarily be the ultimate reality of realities, must exist. You don't see the sea of paradox into which you, not I, throw yourself? You're the logically inconsistent one who arbitrarily and paradoxically embraces the "invisible" axioms of mathematics, but holds that the God axiom is not ultimately true . . . but not really, because you keep simultaneously arguing that it must be true. That's you, not me. You don't see the irony in that?

You don't see the irony in holding that the dimensionally invisible dark mass and dark energy of the universe, for example, must exist due to the visible effects it has on the visible phenomena of the universe, while you contradictorily hold that the dimensionally invisible origin of the universe itself, by definition, once again, the ultimate reality of realities, does not exist in spite of the scientific fact of the God axiom in human psychology and the manifest effects this rational evidence exerts on your mind? That is, once again, You don't see the irony in your inability to assert that God does not exist without contradicting yourself, negating your assertion, necessarily and positively proving the opposite must be true?

That's weird.

According to you all of the other incontrovertible axioms of human apprehension are true . . . but this one is just a fluke of nature?

That's weird.

You don't see the irony of equating visibility with actuality? You're the one who keeps arguing that God's substance would necessarily be immutably transcendent, not contingent like the visible, empirical realm of being. Hence, you don't see the irony in the fact that you keep arguing that God must be, that God the Creator of the Sun, must exist, that the existence of the Sun, therefore, would necessarily be contingent on God's existence, as you think to mock a rationally consistent person?

Are you sure you're mocking me? That's weird, because you clearly have not and cannot counter the objective facts and the axioms of the laws of thought regarding the existence of God. Looks like you're mocking yourself. That's really weird. You don't see the irony in that?

 

[Hollie]

You're equating an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen to ... the sun?

That's Really Weird

I don't know why you're asking me that question. You're the one, as I have shown, who keeps making arguments that are inherently contradictory, self-negate and, therefore, necessarily prove the opposite must be true!

The God axiom is a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology. That's indisputable. It's no different in nature or logical force than the mathematical axiom of 2 + 2 = 4. You believe that one to be true, don't you? Your dismissal of the God axiom is utterly arbitrary and irrational.

You keep arguing that God, Who by definition would necessarily be the ultimate reality of realities, must exist. You don't see the sea of paradox into which you, not I, throw yourself? You're the logically inconsistent one who arbitrarily and paradoxically embraces the "invisible" axioms of mathematics, but holds that the God axiom is not ultimately true . . . but not really, because you keep simultaneously arguing that it must be true. That's you, not me. You don't see the irony in that?

You don't see the irony in holding that the dimensionally invisible dark mass and dark energy of the universe, for example, must exist due to the visible effects it has on the visible phenomena of the universe, while you contradictorily hold that the dimensionally invisible origin of the universe itself, by definition, once again, the ultimate reality of realities, does not exist in spite of the scientific fact of the God axiom in human psychology and the manifest effects this rational evidence exerts on your mind? That is, once again, You don't see the irony in your inability to assert that God does not exist without contradicting yourself, negating your assertion, necessarily and positively proving the opposite must be true?

That's weird.

According to you all of the other incontrovertible axioms of human apprehension are true . . . but this one is just a fluke of nature?

That's weird.

You don't see the irony of equating visibility with actuality? You're the one who keeps arguing that God's substance would necessarily be immutably transcendent, not contingent like the visible, empirical realm of being. Hence, you don't see the irony in the fact that you keep arguing that God must be, that God the Creator of the Sun, must exist, that the existence of the Sun, therefore, would necessarily be contingent on God's existence, as you think to mock a rationally consistent person?

Are you sure you're mocking me? That's weird, because you clearly have not and cannot counter the objective facts and the axioms of the laws of thought regarding the existence of God. Looks like you're mocking yourself. That's really weird. You don't see the irony in that?

That's Really Weird. You stuttered and mumbled something about:

The God axiom is a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology.

That's just pointless and nonsensical.

But coming from you, pointless and nonsensical is what one expects.

That's not weird at all.

 

[Taz]

You're equating an invisible superbeing in another dimension that no one has ever seen to ... the sun?

That's Really Weird

I don't know why you're asking me that question. You're the one, as I have shown, who keeps making arguments that are inherently contradictory, self-negate and, therefore, necessarily prove the opposite must be true!

The God axiom is a scientific fact of human cognition/psychology. That's indisputable. It's no different in nature or logical force than the mathematical axiom of 2 + 2 = 4. You believe that one to be true, don't you? Your dismissal of the God axiom is utterly arbitrary and irrational.

You keep arguing that God, Who by definition would necessarily be the ultimate reality of realities, must exist. You don't see the sea of paradox into which you, not I, throw yourself? You're the logically inconsistent one who arbitrarily and paradoxically embraces the "invisible" axioms of mathematics, but holds that the God axiom is not ultimately true . . . but not really, because you keep simultaneously arguing that it must be true. That's you, not me. You don't see the irony in that?

You don't see the irony in holding that the dimensionally invisible dark mass and dark energy of the universe, for example, must exist due to the visible effects it has on the visible phenomena of the universe, while you contradictorily hold that the dimensionally invisible origin of the universe itself, by definition, once again, the ultimate reality of realities, does not exist in spite of the scientific fact of the God axiom in human psychology and the manifest effects this rational evidence exerts on your mind? That is, once again, You don't see the irony in your inability to assert that God does not exist without contradicting yourself, negating your assertion, necessarily and positively proving the opposite must be true?

That's weird.

According to you all of the other incontrovertible axioms of human apprehension are true . . . but this one is just a fluke of nature?

That's weird.

You don't see the irony of equating visibility with actuality? You're the one who keeps arguing that God's substance would necessarily be immutably transcendent, not contingent like the visible, empirical realm of being. Hence, you don't see the irony in the fact that you keep arguing that God must be, that God the Creator of the Sun, must exist, that the existence of the Sun, therefore, would necessarily be contingent on God's existence, as you think to mock a rationally consistent person?

Are you sure you're mocking me? That's weird, because you clearly have not and cannot counter the objective facts and the axioms of the laws of thought regarding the existence of God. Looks like you're mocking yourself. That's really weird. You don't see the irony in that?

Holy Hot Air Batman!!!

You keep arguing that God, Who by definition would necessarily be the ultimate reality of realities, must exist.

I never argued any such thing, so I guess the whole point that you're attempting to make just turned to crap. Please try again.

 

[Taz]

The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
equating the "God Axiom" to christianity or to any practical purpose of physicality is what is malarkey ...

,

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Can disbelieve in the Sun all you want, but your disbelief wont protect you from lying out in your swimwear all afternoon long. Thus the Sun exists irrefutably.

God's existence though is entirely up for debate. No end of religions claiming to be worshipping some sort of divinity, and yet none of them ever bother offering proof. The existence of a holy text doesn't prove the existence of the god any more than "Twilight" proves the existence of vampires and shape-changers (dunno why they call them werewolves.)

If the God of the Bible does exist it's not worth worshipping because it never does anything. The point of submitting to a god tradiitonally is it did something you desired. In exchange for godly favors, you worshipped it and obeyed its rules. But gods today don't do anything. So why worship them? Simple, it's what you were raised and conditioned to do by both parents and society.

Delta4Embassy Habitually Writes Posts that are Really Weird

You know, Delta4Embassy, for a man who, like myself, understands that quantum physics is perfectly rational (a fact of reality that eludes so many of the scientific illiterates of epistemological relativism who fail to grasp that the subatomic level of quantum physics has primacy over our sensory apprehension of things at the three-dimensional level of being), you sure do express a lot of ideas that belie the foundation of that understanding when it comes to other matters of logic, philosophy, theology and science. That's weird. Why is that?

In your previous post, you expressed the following:

Something's that's always amused me about the whole theistic debate is if God's existence were irrefutable, like say the Sun's, ya wouldn't be asking if he existed in the first place. It's only when something doesn't exist, but people claim it does, that such a debate arises.​

That post was difficult to read. According to grammatical negation, you expressed an idea more at the following:

Well, if I understand you correctly, what always amuses me are the incoherently self-negating arguments of those who rail against the axioms regarding God's existence, which are readily self-evident, scientific facts of human cognition/psychology, for if there be no actual substance of divinity behind these axioms, then all other existents apparent to man are paradoxical, including the apparent existence of the star to which you referred. —M.D. Rawlings​

But now we see that you weren't expressing a sound idea, but the irrationality of the opposite after all.
________________

First, I most certainly did not express the idea that the Sun does not exist. I was alluding to the paradox of holding that the Sun does exist while denying that there be any actual substance behind the axioms of human cognition/psychology regarding the existence of God, Who, by definition, would be the Creator of the Sun, something that could not exist in the first place unless God exists (See Post #890.).

God's existence is up for debate, you say? Really?

Not according to the laws of thought!

Apparently you've never thought the matter out and haven't paid attention to the fact that every one of the atheists' arguments on this thread have been utterly annihilated, turned on themselves, for any attempt to deny the existence of God according to the laws of thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) is inherently contradictory, self-negating and positively proves the opposite must be true: God must exist!

That's what proofs are, Delta4Embassy!

You appear to be confused about the distinction between logic, which is used to prove or disprove things, and science, which is merely the methodology we use to tentatively verify or falsify things. That's weird. You appear not to grasp the fact that logic and the philosophy of science (agency) precede and have primacy over science (methodology). That's weird. How did you manage to avoid the error of confounding the realities of quantum physics like so many other epistemological relativists, while you remain confused about the formal/standard conventions of logic, science and justified true belief/knowledge? That's weird.

I don't have to provide a proof for God's existence, Delta4Embassy! The universal, bioneurologically hardwired rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, including the universal laws of thought thereof, which evince the scientific fact of the incontrovertible axioms of human psychology regarding the existence of God, provide the logical proof, one that neither you nor any other human being can refute on the basis of first principles without contradicting yourself.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/


Now if you want to haggle over the proposition of whether or not this axiom of human psychology holds true outside the parameters of the laws of thought, beyond the confines of human cognition, in other words, whether or not it ultimately or transcendentally holds true, as you contradictorily hold that all of the other intuitively a priori axioms/tautologies of thought and mathematics hold true: have at it. But don't think for moment that you can sell your hogwash to anyone but fools. Don't tell me that your arguments would be backed by logic or science, that you're not necessarily standing on a logically paradoxical and pseudoscientific premise.

Beyond the scientific fact of the God axiom in human psychology and the ramifications thereof, the objective facts of human cognition touching on the problems of existence and origin, I do not assert that my personal theological system of thought (biblical Judeo-Christianity) is scientifically falsifiable. It's superior to science as it's theological in nature and can, therefore, address the issue of why! I'm under no obligation whatsoever to prove anything to you in that regard. That's between you and God or whatever. You, on the other hand, are the one who is necessarily implying that your religious system of thought, namely, an apparently materialistic pantheism, is rationally or scientifically falsifiable!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210839/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10211209/


No, Sir! Don't think you can sell your shoeshine to anyone but fools, for it is you and others like you who keep throwing down a gauntlet that puts the burden of proof on you. I stick with the universally objective and, therefore, rationally/empirically demonstrable aspects of human cognition. You're the ones who keep unwittingly barking at the moon with relativistic mumbo jumbo and purely subjective notions of belief.

And that's why you guys keep getting the floor wiped with your asses all hanging out.

Don't tell me you can actually refute any one of the arguments in the above or any one of the following with anything but the typically evasive, insubstantial, unresponsive logical fallacies of irrationalism:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10197234/

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The God Axiom is total malarkey. Just thought you should know.

That's Really Weird Too

You're full of malarkey. We both know you can't refute it. Its a scientific fact of human psychology. You're barking at the moon.

If you want to haggle over whether or not it ultimately or transcendently holds true, see Post #895 addressed to Delta4Embassy; otherwise, provide a link of a peer-reviewed, experimentally verified body of evidence that this axiom has been overthrown by a resolution to the problems of existence and origin, i.e., (1) that either your materialistic metaphysics are true or (2) that something can arise from nothing.

Got ?





. . . that's what I thought.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

.
equating the "God Axiom" to christianity or to any practical purpose of physicality is what is malarkey ...

,

Your straw man is malarkey. As I told Delta4Embassy, my personal beliefs regarding the true identity of the divinity of the God axiom is an entirely different matter. I don't purport that to be something I can prove to anyone. Notwithstanding, the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin consistently support an eternal and transcendental divinity of self-aware personhood, not so much a pantheistic/panentheistic divinity. That's your problem, not mine. That's between you and your conscience to decide based on these facts.

I don't know why you keep following me around trying to convince me otherwise. Your straw man is malarkey, and you're not going to change my mind on Who the true God is. I don't know why you keep trying to drag me into your personal spiritual affairs, but it's a little creepy. You should really see someone about your penchant for cyber stalking.

 

[Hollie]

.
equating the "God Axiom" to christianity or to any practical purpose of physicality is what is malarkey ...

,

Your straw man is malarkey. As I told Delta4Embassy, my personal beliefs regarding the true identity of the divinity of the God axiom is an entirely different matter. I don't purport that to be something I can prove to anyone. Notwithstanding, the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin consistently support an eternal and transcendental divinity of self-aware personhood, not so much a pantheistic/panentheistic divinity. That's your problem, not mine. That's between you and your conscience to decide based on these facts.

I don't know why you keep following me around trying to convince me otherwise. Your straw man is malarkey, and you're not going to change my mind on Who the true God is. I don't know why you keep trying to drag me into your personal spiritual affairs, but it's a little creepy. You should really see someone about your penchant for cyber stalking.

That's weird!

There's nothing to suggest that the subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin would in any way support an eternal and transcendental divinity of self-aware personhood.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
equating the "God Axiom" to christianity or to any practical purpose of physicality is what is malarkey ...

,

Your straw man is malarkey. As I told Delta4Embassy, my personal beliefs regarding the true identity of the divinity of the God axiom is an entirely different matter. I don't purport that to be something I can prove to anyone. Notwithstanding, the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin consistently support an eternal and transcendental divinity of self-aware personhood, not so much a pantheistic/panentheistic divinity. That's your problem, not mine. That's between you and your conscience to decide based on these facts.

I don't know why you keep following me around trying to convince me otherwise. Your straw man is malarkey, and you're not going to change my mind on Who the true God is. I don't know why you keep trying to drag me into your personal spiritual affairs, but it's a little creepy. You should really see someone about your penchant for cyber stalking.

That's weird!

There's nothing to suggest that the subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin would in any way support an eternal and transcendental divinity of self-aware personhood.

^

a single post is somehow interfering with the christian fanatics fantasies ... to bad for mdr. -

not to mention his avoidance for any practical application of his misguided ramblings.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That's weird!

There's nothing to suggest that the subjective opinions of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin would in any way support an eternal and transcendental divinity of self-aware personhood.

That's really weird that you should say they are subjective given the fact that you keep putting yourself down for The Seven Things. Let's put you down for them again, shall we?


Putty Hollie Down for The Seven Things


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 Things 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:

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 , 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.