Why do the God-haters persist?

[MrMax]

You can prove to yourself that things of a spiritual nature exist by examining spiritual evidence, but in order to do this, your mind has to accept that spiritual nature is real.

huh?

anyone?
cart before the horse
circular logic
fallacy
whoo00o geez, too many to list patna

There's no "cart before the horse" or fallacy. Circular logic doesn't mean incorrect logic. If you encountered a jungle tribe deep in the heart of Africa, where they did not believe or know of anything regarding physical science, and you began trying to explain things in terms of physical science, but they just pointed to the sky and grunted at you... would you likely ever be able to convince them of any relevant scientific fact? If they rejected your concept of physical science and demanded you could ONLY appeal to spiritual evidence, could you ever make them realize physical evidence?

The same thing is happening here in reverse. You refuse to recognize spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. Doesn't matter what evidence I present, you will reject it because you don't believe the premise to begin with. I can't reach you with spiritual evidence, you just point to your science book and grunt.

Because you haven't shown any spiritual evidence that is scientifically valid.

 

[MrMax]

But it has been proven to billions and billions of people over thousands and thousands of years. It hasn't been proven to YOU... but YOU aren't everyone.

If you are going to make the claim that something doesn't exist, you need to support that claim with some evidence. Whether there is proof for it or not, doesn't matter. I could argue that time and space do not exist because you've not proven they do. I could argue that reality doesn't exist because you've not proven it does. The list goes on an on. Because, in fact, only mathematics are proven absolutely, and that's just in our realization within the known universe.

the imaginary authority of the masses ploy.......not evidence ..

You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?

Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence.

Game--set--match!

Because there's no such thing. Spirituality is a manifestation of our own brain put there by evolution because our ancestors were very afraid of death and needed some way to rationalize it to make themselves feel better.

 

[thanatos144]

People who hate God and many here on this board does fear judgment for the things they do. Hedonism.

 

[G.T.]

People who hate God and many here on this board does fear judgment for the things they do. Hedonism.

People do, not people does homey.

 

[Newby]

All of your posts illustrate your rejection of the Fruits.Did you take the time to compare them to aggression?
What did you find?

Okay...

I concede that I totally 'reject the fruits'. You can go away now.

I may use your post as a signature with an attribution to you. Is that ok?

If you're too damn stupid to 'get it', then go right ahead you fool... I gave myself a good laugh on that one.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Are things that are false incorrect?

Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular.

Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true.

Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING!

Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?

Circular logic is false because it is framed as a proof argument but actually proves nothing, simply stating the original premise as proof.

I see you changing the goalpost here.
You have said before that one would have to believe in something to accept evidence for it.
Now you are saying you want an example of something one does not believe in that they accept evidence for. Not the same proposition in the least.
This is not "minutia"(sic).

 

[BreezeWood]

How do you identify spiritually? What do you call yourself? Just curious.

I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -

between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.

.

Why didn't you answer my question? It appears you aren't an Atheist or agnostic, you do believe in spiritual nature. I am just curious as to what you identify with spiritually.

Per your argument, I have never said that things don't respond to their environment. Every living thing responds to it's surrounding environment. Obviously, a surrounding environment is not part of self. Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.

Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.


or the extreme subtlety of wildlife simply does not resonate on your radar is not proof their spirituality does not exist.

- worship is a failure to understand.

.

 

[Boss]

I would just say and you might agree it is readily apparent, what is confusing is why you insist humanity alone is responding to something other than self ... and insist an Orchid's display similarly in response to something other than self requires "proof" of spirituality inferring it is ??? something else. -

between the two, humanity and the Orchid the Orchid wins the contest hands down, responding to something other than self.

.

Why didn't you answer my question? It appears you aren't an Atheist or agnostic, you do believe in spiritual nature. I am just curious as to what you identify with spiritually.

Per your argument, I have never said that things don't respond to their environment. Every living thing responds to it's surrounding environment. Obviously, a surrounding environment is not part of self. Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.

Humans worship a power greater than self, is not saying that nothing else recognizes or responds to it's environment.


or the extreme subtlety of wildlife simply does not resonate on your radar is not proof their spirituality does not exist.

- worship is a failure to understand.

.

I've conceded that you may have a point with this, and I haven't disputed it. Perhaps when the birds are chirping in the early morning as the sun rises, it is their form of "worship" and I don't recognize it as such? It's possible, I grant you that. But you respond by calling me names and pretending I've rejected that.

"Worship is a failure to understand." I don't know that I accept that simplistic platitude. "Worship is reverence" would be more in line with what I believe. But to each his own.

 

[Boss]

Are things that are false incorrect?

Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular.

Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true.

Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING!

Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?

Circular logic is false because it is framed as a proof argument but actually proves nothing, simply stating the original premise as proof.

I see you changing the goalpost here.
You have said before that one would have to believe in something to accept evidence for it.
Now you are saying you want an example of something one does not believe in that they accept evidence for. Not the same proposition in the least.
This is not "minutia"(sic).

No goalpost changing again. It continues to be your apparent inability to read basic grammatical structuring of sentences and remain in context. Same proposition, you're just conflating the context. Whether it is on purpose or out of ignorance doesn't seem to matter, I have now clarified what my point was and you still want to find a way to reject my point. Now you seem to be wanting to tell me what I did or didn't mean to say. Amazing.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Well, false and incorrect are two different words, aren't they? I would imagine if they both meant the identical same thing, there would be no need for both words. A false pregnancy test is not an incorrect pregnancy test, is it? False teeth aren't incorrect teeth, are they? A false bottom is not an incorrect bottom, is it? I can go on and on with examples, but I don't know what the purpose is of this idiocy, I disagree with the definition that it's "false logic" OR "incorrect logic." Circular logic is neither. It's just circular.

Again, my example: "Criminals break the law because breaking the law is what criminals do." Do you think that is an "incorrect" or "false" statement, or not? It's clearly circular logic, but it's still true.

Back to the point... you cannot objectively evaluate something as evidence if you don't first believe in whatever the evidence is supposed to be for. None of you have been able to give a single example of something you do not believe exists or is true, yet accept credible evidence exists to support it. Not one thing... it's been three days... not ONE THING!

Instead of myopically trying to pin me down with semantics and minutia, why not just post an example to prove me wrong? That shouldn't be too difficult if I am wrong, should it?

Circular logic is false because it is framed as a proof argument but actually proves nothing, simply stating the original premise as proof.

I see you changing the goalpost here.
You have said before that one would have to believe in something to accept evidence for it.
Now you are saying you want an example of something one does not believe in that they accept evidence for. Not the same proposition in the least.
This is not "minutia"(sic).

No goalpost changing again. It continues to be your apparent inability to read basic grammatical structuring of sentences and remain in context. Same proposition, you're just conflating the context. Whether it is on purpose or out of ignorance doesn't seem to matter, I have now clarified what my point was and you still want to find a way to reject my point. Now you seem to be wanting to tell me what I did or didn't mean to say. Amazing.

Are you too defensive to see the difference?
Really?
Ok.

 

[Boss]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

 

[G.T.]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.

That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.

I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until then,

Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.

 

[GISMYS]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.

That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.

I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until then,

Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.

LOL!!!So you want to believe in the "big bang" to create the universe and life,the human body and brain=the most well designed most complex things in the known universe is just a accident of time and chance starting with a big bang???????????? GET REAL!!!! what exployed and why???THINK!!!

 

[MrMax]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Except that you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.

 

[Boss]

I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.

That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.

I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until then,

Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.

But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.

 

[Boss]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Except that you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.

You're right, and if God were a physical entity which could be evaluated with physical sciences, you'd have a rational point. As it stands, God is not and you don't.

 

[G.T.]

I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.

That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.

I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until then,

Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.

But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.

Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe.

I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know.

Life on earth is evidence of a creator.

Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it.

There is evidence that I'm Irish.
(my skin color).

I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish.

I do not believe I'm Irish.

Your statement was profoundly flawed.

 

[Boss]

you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.

Of course, this isn't actually true, either. I have indeed shown scientific evidence to support the validity of human spiritual worship. You didn't agree with my evidence.

 

[MrMax]

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Except that you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.

You're right, and if God were a physical entity which could be evaluated with physical sciences, you'd have a rational point. As it stands, God is not and you don't.

You don't know that as fact, just more wild speculation.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Yes, there is a difference.
You now want someone to show evidence for something they don't believe in. That doesn't prove your point in the least.
Devolving to epithets and vulgarity doesn't make it a valid point either.
Maybe what you mean to say and what you do say are two different things.