Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.

Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.

This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid.

Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.

 

[G.T.]

 

[Montrovant]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.

Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.

This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid.

Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.

And we're back again to having to believe in something before seeing evidence of it!

So which is it? Does a person need to believe something is possible, or already believe something exists?

Do you even believe a person can think of a thing as possible without actually accepting it as real?

 

[Montrovant]

Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own. Or did you somehow miss his previous post? I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.

Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him? Imagine that? Hypocrisy!

Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?

Yeah, cause I'm 'all you guys', right?

When you find an instance of me insulting Boss prior to him insulting me in this thread, I'll apologize immediately.

As far as I know, however, all the insults have begun with him. I have only responded to them.

But go ahead and get upset with me repeating his own insults back at him and talk about how hypocritical someone is for not being as upset with that as with the original insults, while at the same time you praise Boss's posts and never take issue when he's the one who decides to start resorting to insults. It's amusing.

And just to be clear, the post where Boss said 'fucktarded morons' was not directed specifically at me. However, as I've tried to point out what his posts seem to be saying on multiple occasions, I certainly felt I was included in the comment.

But I'll go ahead and apologize now. That insult may not have been in any way directed at me. Sorry.

Of course, I don't feel the slightest compunction repeating it back at him. It's certainly not a case of me opening with an insult and him responding to it, at any rate.

 

[Boss]

false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...

Well, I did not copy and paste my remarks from a third-party source like you did. In my own words, I said: except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. You somehow deduce it is a "gotchya" moment because your copy-n-paste definition says: except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems.

I'm not sure if you are comprehending this, but "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing. I mean, it's not identical, but mine is my own words and yours is a copy/paste from someone smarter than you.

false! more tantruming....
odd that "your" words are an exact word for word quote just be caused you memorized them does not make them yours...
hers another example of you misrepresenting for your own "Theory" : "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing."
boosy

ah no they are not .....you've reinvented what localized systems are to fit your nonsense in the same way you attempted to bullshit that hot water is not hot by using the impracticable faux comparison that since it's not as hot as the sun it's not hot..
as to you being smarter than I Am....truly smart people do not need to proclaim they are...they just are....
also, making word soup as you do is more evidence of your denseness..
truly smart people are direct and choose the right words even if they are not theirs.
anyone can yammer and you have a black belt in yammering...

I didn't "memorize" anything dawsy, I learned this a long time ago, and have argued it on numerous occasions, including when you tried to claim that "evidence is a lazy way of saying proof" or whatever nonsense you spewed. You're not smart, hell, I don't even believe you rise to the level of DUMB! You're a borderline retard. You're constantly saying the most retarded stuff... like arguing that "hot water is hot because it just is!" Then being totally schooled by me when I point out that it's practically freezing compared to the sun.

Now anyone with half a brain can understand "hot water is hot because it just is!" is an asinine argument, and IF something like that were to be posted by ME, we'd hear about it for weeks! But your butt-buddies feel sorry for your retard ass because you're one of them, god love ya, so they cut you some slack.

Mathematics is "proof" relative to localized systems, means essentially what I said it means in a different way using some different words. You thought you had found something you could finally prove me wrong about, but you didn't. Sorry about that, I guess I should show some sympathy to you and let you win a few of these yammering spars, but seeing how I'm a black belt and I enjoy kicking your retarded ass around, I don't think so. Suck it!

 

[Boss]

And we're back again to having to believe in something before seeing evidence of it!

So which is it? Does a person need to believe something is possible, or already believe something exists?

Do you even believe a person can think of a thing as possible without actually accepting it as real?

And AGAIN... you totally dodge the question and attempt to take the debate off into la-la-land.

Do you believe spiritual nature exists? YES or NO????

We'll proceed from there, AFTER you've answered the goddamn question, Moonbat!

 

[G.T.]

You dont need to believe in something to accept evidence of it.

That is an illogical assertion and renders your uh...train of thought......moot. Completely moot.

You are fucking literally saying that belief comes BEFORE evidence can be considered. That is dumb.
.

 

[Steven_R]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.

Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.

This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid.

Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.

I had a professor tell me one time "analysis without data isn't analysis. It's an opinion."

I fully allow for the possibility of the spiritual world. But there has been zero quantitative evidence offered for its existence. Until that evidence exists, the spiritual is a scientific non-entity. It simply doesn't enter into what science does until it can be shown to exist.

 

[thebrucebeat]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.

Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.

This entire side-rant began as me making the point that you cannot objectively evaluate spiritual evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature, and thus, don't believe spiritual evidence can exist. Therefore, all spiritual evidence offered is rejected on the grounds that it doesn't exist or is subjective/anecdotal/invalid.

Do you believe or accept that spiritual nature exists, that there is a spiritual realm which is not a part of physical nature? Yes or no? If the answer is "yes" you can objectively evaluate spiritual evidence. If the answer is "no" you cannot.... it's not possible. Now you can twist and contort semantics around and call it "circular logic" or focus on some minutia unrelated to the question and pretend you don't understand the context for three or four days, or you can get a fucking clue and comprehend what I am saying. I have no control over that, it's on you.

We comprehend. It is complete nonsense.
Once more you ask if we already believe something exists. If you already believe any evidence will do. You will further enhance your belief by any excuse if you already believe, and will call it "evidence". Circular logic is not "minutia"(sic). It's poor argumentation.
What happens if someone has no idea if there is a "spiritual nature"? Are they cast into your abyss as liars, deceitful, cowards, and then the vulgarity that follows?

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

I've conceded that you may have a point with this, and I haven't disputed it ...

"Worship is reverence" -


why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?

you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?

.

 

[Montrovant]

And we're back again to having to believe in something before seeing evidence of it!

So which is it? Does a person need to believe something is possible, or already believe something exists?

Do you even believe a person can think of a thing as possible without actually accepting it as real?

And AGAIN... you totally dodge the question and attempt to take the debate off into la-la-land.

Do you believe spiritual nature exists? YES or NO????

We'll proceed from there, AFTER you've answered the goddamn question, Moonbat!

I've answered this question already, so I'm not sure why you're ranting about it. No, I don't believe spiritual nature exists, at least not beyond human belief. Then again, you already knew that. Like I said, I've answered that question before.

It has nothing to do with the point, which is that you most certainly do not have to believe in something before you can accept evidence of it. That has been pointed out to you, with examples, on multiple occasions.

I've gone so far as to concede that not believing a thing is even possible makes it extremely difficult to find evidence that a person will accept. Yet somehow, again and again, you revert back from the idea that a person must believe a thing possible before examining evidence to a person already having to believe a thing exists before examining evidence. By that reasoning, no new discovery could ever be made, unless it was a discovery based on a coincidental imagining. After all, if someone discovers something completely new, they didn't believe in it when they discovered it, so they wouldn't be able to objectively examine evidence of it.

Aside : since you've stated that all evidence is subjectively examined, no one can ever objectively examine evidence anyway.

So, as has been said, I understand what you are saying. I'm telling you you are wrong, monumentally wrong, when you say a person must believe in a thing before they can examine evidence of that thing. I've been more than willing to operate under the idea that a person must believe a thing is possible, but since you continually go back to having to actually believe in it, this particular trail in the discussion rambles on.

 

[Boss]

No, I don't believe spiritual nature exists, at least not beyond human belief. Then again, you already knew that.

Right... so you CAN'T objectively evaluate the spiritual evidence to support spiritual nature. You don't believe in it. This is really no different than if I don't believe in Physics, I CAN'T objectively evaluate a physics problem.

...since you've stated that all evidence is subjectively examined...

I never said this, fucknuts. I said evidence is subjective, not subjectively examined. Why is it your instinct to twist and distort what I say every single time?

 

[Boss]

why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?

you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?

.

I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.

I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?

 

[thebrucebeat]

why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?

you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?

.

I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.

I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?

Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.

 

[Boss]

why would you not bother to connect the two - humanity and wildlife being equally connected to their mutual Creator ???? - why even question its existence, religion ?

you would rather show "reverence" (involving only yourself) than "understanding" the complete meaning of everything available for observation ?

.

I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.

I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?

Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.

Yeah, but I know animals exist, dimwit.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I don't believe spiritual nature exists, at least not beyond human belief. Then again, you already knew that.

Right... so you CAN'T objectively evaluate the spiritual evidence to support spiritual nature. You don't believe in it. This is really no different than if I don't believe in Physics, I CAN'T objectively evaluate a physics problem.

...since you've stated that all evidence is subjectively examined...

I never said this, fucknuts. I said evidence is subjective, not subjectively examined. Why is it your instinct to twist and distort what I say every single time?

You complain about people harping on minutiae, then respond with this?

OK, evidence is subjective. So if I see a rock as evidence of god.....is the rock different for everyone who sees it? Or is it the examination and conclusions drawn from the rock that are subjective?

Sure, if I am using someone's opinion on something as evidence, that's subjective. But since, by definition, subjective is about the thoughts and opinions of an individual, all evidence is not subjective.

Maybe I 'twist and distort' what you say because so often it makes no sense. Fucknuts.

 

[Montrovant]

I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.

I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?

Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.

Yeah, but I know animals exist, dimwit.

But you don't know that the spiritual nature of animals exists, dimwit.

 

[Montrovant]

Hey [MENTION=17441]Newby[/MENTION], want to complain about me returning Boss's insults some more? As you can see from the previous posts, he's spewed out a couple more.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I've never said they weren't connected or even "equally" connected. I conceded that you might be correct, other living things may experience spiritual connection in their own way and we may just not be aware of that. I see no signs of other living things making moral conscious decisions of right and wrong or proactively worshiping something greater than self. I didn't say it's not possible or it doesn't happen. I see no indication of it happening.

I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?

Now you understand all the people that say they can entertain the possibility of something being true and yet see no evidence for it. Just like you and your perception of animals. You don't believe it is true, but you could entertain the evidence if it was presented to you.
The walls of Jericho just came a'tumblin' down.

Yeah, but I know animals exist, dimwit.

And I know people exist.
You don't know if animals have a spiritual nature. You don't believe so but you would entertain evidence if it was presented.
I hear you.
Ditto that with people.
Jericho in rubbles now.

 

[Boss]

Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.

I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.

Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.

As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.