Discussion:
Abstraction?
(too old to reply)
Dale
2016-03-25 00:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?

Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Evil Roy Slade
2016-03-25 00:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Dale
2016-03-25 01:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Abstraction itself?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Evil Roy Slade
2016-03-25 01:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Abstraction itself?
You blithering twat.
Dale
2016-03-25 01:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Abstraction itself?
You blithering twat.
Do you have proof that a twat can blither? Or is this a blind faith?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Wm. Esque
2016-03-25 16:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Abstraction itself?
Faith is an assumption, based on past experience, observation
and reason.
An example: based on past experience I have faith the sun will rise
each and every day for the next 50 years.
Blind faith is the absence of past experience, observation or reason.
I will be alive to witness each sunrise the next 50 years.
Bob Officer
2016-03-26 02:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.

Can go along with blind drunk, blind man's bluff, and blind following the
blind.
Wm. Esque
2016-03-26 21:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
[snip]
Bob Officer
2016-03-27 02:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?

You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.

Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Wm. Esque
2016-03-27 04:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Bob Officer
2016-03-28 19:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
I suggest you reread your own statement. The fallacy you posted is below.

"Billions of people are convinced..."

That fits the classic example of argumentum ad populum.

Do you ever take off your blinders of bias?
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
And yet your argument is in the form of a fallacy.

A claim unsupported by evidence is considered ridiculous, and defaults to
the negative.

Any theist claim, minus supporting evidence is ridiculous.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
I need not go and waste time for something which don't exist.

I do not waste time looking for the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the
purple unicorn in your lower garden.
I would I waste time looking for your imaginary god.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Wm. Esque
2016-03-29 04:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
I suggest you reread your own statement. The fallacy you posted is below.
"Billions of people are convinced..."
That fits the classic example of argumentum ad populum.
When you take only _part_ of my comment, and pretend it's
my argument - that's distortion.
Post by Bob Officer
Do you ever take off your blinders of bias?
I've been where you are in the not too distant past. But I did my
_OWN_ research, rather than just read anti-theist propaganda.
Research is looking at _both_ sides, not just one.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
And yet your argument is in the form of a fallacy.
As you restated it- perhaps it would.
Post by Bob Officer
A claim unsupported by evidence is considered ridiculous, and defaults to
the negative.
I've studiously avoided making any claim, the claim is yours! And I've
challenged you!
Post by Bob Officer
Any theist claim, minus supporting evidence is ridiculous.
I've made _no_ claim. Instead, I challenged your claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
I need not go and waste time for something which don't exist.
Yet, you Know this without doing any research, _HOW_? By allowing others
to do your thinking for you! This strongly suggest you have succumbed to
ant-theist propaganda. And you know _only_ one side
of the issue! In any fair trial the jury has to evaluate both sides
of a case before arriving at an honest conclusion.
Post by Bob Officer
I do not waste time looking for the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the
purple unicorn in your lower garden.
Nor do I, since no one seriously believes in these childhood stories,
so, there is no reason to do research. If there were countless sincere
believers in unicorns I would do the research. Not to do so under these
circumstances is a cop-out.
Post by Bob Officer
I would I waste time looking for your imaginary god.
As I said I was where you are. You cannot know this without
research. Without research it's only be a personal belief, as
such it is no different from theist who also believe. It's only
belief.
Many theist have done research which at least points to
the _possibility_ of a super-intelligent designer.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
m***@.
2016-04-04 00:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
I suggest you reread your own statement. The fallacy you posted is below.
"Billions of people are convinced..."
That fits the classic example of argumentum ad populum.
When you take only _part_ of my comment, and pretend it's
my argument - that's distortion.
Post by Bob Officer
Do you ever take off your blinders of bias?
I've been where you are in the not too distant past. But I did my
_OWN_ research, rather than just read anti-theist propaganda.
Research is looking at _both_ sides, not just one.
That's one of the the easy basic starting lines strong atheists can't get as
"far" as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
And yet your argument is in the form of a fallacy.
As you restated it- perhaps it would.
Post by Bob Officer
A claim unsupported by evidence is considered ridiculous, and defaults to
the negative.
I've studiously avoided making any claim, the claim is yours! And I've
challenged you!
From my experience with them it's _VERY!!!_ rare that they can even attempt
to meet a challenge, however easy it seems that it should be for them to do so.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Any theist claim, minus supporting evidence is ridiculous.
I've made _no_ claim. Instead, I challenged your claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
I need not go and waste time for something which don't exist.
Yet, you Know this without doing any research, _HOW_? By allowing others
to do your thinking for you! This strongly suggest you have succumbed to
ant-theist propaganda. And you know _only_ one side
of the issue! In any fair trial the jury has to evaluate both sides
of a case before arriving at an honest conclusion.
They want to deny all evidence that does exist, which goes way beyond
acknowledging it and saying that it's not persuasive to them. Such a denial is
based entirely on dishonesty. Even so their denial, and even IF they could
acknoledge and reject, tells us they believe that if there really is a God
associated with this planet there "should be" more/better/stronger/clearer
evidence that what there is. Since they make it clear they believe that even
though amusingly they're almost always too ashamed to admit it, I've often
presented them with a challenge to see if any of them have any idea at all what
they think they're trying to talk about when they demand evidence. The challenge
has defeated every one of them entirely every time any of them has ever been
presented with it. The challenge is for them to try to explain WHAT sort of
evidence they believe there should be, WHERE they believe it should be, WHY they
think God should make it available to us, and WHEN they think he should or
should have presented it if there truly is a God associated with Earth. That
simple challenge to try to explain what they think they're trying to talk about
has always defeated them entirely both as individuals and as a group.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I do not waste time looking for the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the
purple unicorn in your lower garden.
Nor do I, since no one seriously believes in these childhood stories,
so, there is no reason to do research.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as. They can't recognise any distinction between things we know to be fictitious
like the EB and Santa, and the possibility of God's existence which no one could
possibly know is fictitious even if it is. Not even in regards to this planet
alone much less other places in the galaxy, and universe...
Post by Wm. Esque
If there were countless sincere
believers in unicorns I would do the research. Not to do so under these
circumstances is a cop-out.
Post by Bob Officer
I would I waste time looking for your imaginary god.
As I said I was where you are. You cannot know this without
research. Without research it's only be a personal belief, as
such it is no different from theist who also believe. It's only
belief.
The fact that their own faith is in no way superior to any other religious
belief is yet another easy basic starting line they can't get as "far" as. In
fact the existence of their own faith usually clearly appears to be another easy
basic starting line they can't get as "far" as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Many theist have done research which at least points to
the _possibility_ of a super-intelligent designer.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Wm. Esque
2016-04-08 01:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
I suggest you reread your own statement. The fallacy you posted is below.
"Billions of people are convinced..."
That fits the classic example of argumentum ad populum.
When you take only _part_ of my comment, and pretend it's
my argument - that's distortion.
Post by Bob Officer
Do you ever take off your blinders of bias?
I've been where you are in the not too distant past. But I did my
_OWN_ research, rather than just read anti-theist propaganda.
Research is looking at _both_ sides, not just one.
That's one of the the easy basic starting lines strong atheists can't get as
"far" as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
And yet your argument is in the form of a fallacy.
As you restated it- perhaps it would.
Post by Bob Officer
A claim unsupported by evidence is considered ridiculous, and defaults to
the negative.
I've studiously avoided making any claim, the claim is yours! And I've
challenged you!
From my experience with them it's _VERY!!!_ rare that they can even attempt
to meet a challenge, however easy it seems that it should be for them to do so.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Any theist claim, minus supporting evidence is ridiculous.
I've made _no_ claim. Instead, I challenged your claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
I need not go and waste time for something which don't exist.
Yet, you Know this without doing any research, _HOW_? By allowing others
to do your thinking for you! This strongly suggest you have succumbed to
ant-theist propaganda. And you know _only_ one side
of the issue! In any fair trial the jury has to evaluate both sides
of a case before arriving at an honest conclusion.
They want to deny all evidence that does exist, which goes way beyond
acknowledging it and saying that it's not persuasive to them. Such a denial is
based entirely on dishonesty. Even so their denial, and even IF they could
acknoledge and reject, tells us they believe that if there really is a God
associated with this planet there "should be" more/better/stronger/clearer
evidence that what there is. Since they make it clear they believe that even
though amusingly they're almost always too ashamed to admit it, I've often
presented them with a challenge to see if any of them have any idea at all what
they think they're trying to talk about when they demand evidence. The challenge
has defeated every one of them entirely every time any of them has ever been
presented with it. The challenge is for them to try to explain WHAT sort of
evidence they believe there should be, WHERE they believe it should be, WHY they
think God should make it available to us, and WHEN they think he should or
should have presented it if there truly is a God associated with Earth. That
simple challenge to try to explain what they think they're trying to talk about
has always defeated them entirely both as individuals and as a group.
If one knows one side only, then, or if one thinks evidence is non
existent, then they are exactly where this mindset leaves them.
But in all honesty, most evidence is subjective and in interpreted
within an overriding pre-existing belief-set.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I do not waste time looking for the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the
purple unicorn in your lower garden.
Nor do I, since no one seriously believes in these childhood stories,
so, there is no reason to do research.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as. They can't recognise any distinction between things we know to be fictitious
like the EB and Santa, and the possibility of God's existence which no one could
possibly know is fictitious even if it is. Not even in regards to this planet
alone much less other places in the galaxy, and universe...
As one respondent commented, "we are at checkmate"
.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
If there were countless sincere
believers in unicorns I would do the research. Not to do so under these
circumstances is a cop-out.
A "unicorn" is what Marco-Polo called a one horned rhino.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I would I waste time looking for your imaginary god.
As I said I was where you are. You cannot know this without
research. Without research it's only be a personal belief, as
such it is no different from theist who also believe. It's only
belief.
The fact that their own faith is in no way superior to any other religious
belief is yet another easy basic starting line they can't get as "far" as. In
fact the existence of their own faith usually clearly appears to be another easy
basic starting line they can't get as "far" as.
There were many people who once frequented this newsgroup who, in my
opinion, had very good arguments, but few any longer participate.
Personally, I do not have any desire to "force" my beliefs on anyone.
Indeed, it a charge that one often notes, IE an accusation against
religious people while at the same time atheist use courts and the law
to force God from the from the communities and the nation. In doing so
they are effectively denying, removing and changing the religious
traditions and heritage of the US. The phrase of separation of church
and state is not found in the constitution, so they turn to a letter
by Jefferson to justify their war on religion. But Jefferson was only
one of the writers of the US constitution. Other writers were:
John Dickinson, Governor Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,
Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman,
James Wilson, and George Wythe.
So, why select out one writer from many then quote mine from
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist. Should the letters
from other writers of the constitution be cited in making laws?
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Many theist have done research which at least points to
the _possibility_ of a super-intelligent designer.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
m***@.
2016-04-09 14:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
I suggest you reread your own statement. The fallacy you posted is below.
"Billions of people are convinced..."
That fits the classic example of argumentum ad populum.
When you take only _part_ of my comment, and pretend it's
my argument - that's distortion.
Post by Bob Officer
Do you ever take off your blinders of bias?
I've been where you are in the not too distant past. But I did my
_OWN_ research, rather than just read anti-theist propaganda.
Research is looking at _both_ sides, not just one.
That's one of the the easy basic starting lines strong atheists can't get as
"far" as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
And yet your argument is in the form of a fallacy.
As you restated it- perhaps it would.
Post by Bob Officer
A claim unsupported by evidence is considered ridiculous, and defaults to
the negative.
I've studiously avoided making any claim, the claim is yours! And I've
challenged you!
From my experience with them it's _VERY!!!_ rare that they can even attempt
to meet a challenge, however easy it seems that it should be for them to do so.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Any theist claim, minus supporting evidence is ridiculous.
I've made _no_ claim. Instead, I challenged your claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
I need not go and waste time for something which don't exist.
Yet, you Know this without doing any research, _HOW_? By allowing others
to do your thinking for you! This strongly suggest you have succumbed to
ant-theist propaganda. And you know _only_ one side
of the issue! In any fair trial the jury has to evaluate both sides
of a case before arriving at an honest conclusion.
They want to deny all evidence that does exist, which goes way beyond
acknowledging it and saying that it's not persuasive to them. Such a denial is
based entirely on dishonesty. Even so their denial, and even IF they could
acknoledge and reject, tells us they believe that if there really is a God
associated with this planet there "should be" more/better/stronger/clearer
evidence that what there is. Since they make it clear they believe that even
though amusingly they're almost always too ashamed to admit it, I've often
presented them with a challenge to see if any of them have any idea at all what
they think they're trying to talk about when they demand evidence. The challenge
has defeated every one of them entirely every time any of them has ever been
presented with it. The challenge is for them to try to explain WHAT sort of
evidence they believe there should be, WHERE they believe it should be, WHY they
think God should make it available to us, and WHEN they think he should or
should have presented it if there truly is a God associated with Earth. That
simple challenge to try to explain what they think they're trying to talk about
has always defeated them entirely both as individuals and as a group.
If one knows one side only, then, or if one thinks evidence is non
existent, then they are exactly where this mindset leaves them.
But in all honesty, most evidence is subjective and in interpreted
within an overriding pre-existing belief-set.
They can't bring themselves to be that honest about it, and may not even be
able to comprehend what you pointed out, as well as the other things I mentioned
about them above.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I do not waste time looking for the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the
purple unicorn in your lower garden.
Nor do I, since no one seriously believes in these childhood stories,
so, there is no reason to do research.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as. They can't recognise any distinction between things we know to be fictitious
like the EB and Santa, and the possibility of God's existence which no one could
possibly know is fictitious even if it is. Not even in regards to this planet
alone much less other places in the galaxy, and universe...
As one respondent commented, "we are at checkmate".
Who are the "we" being referred to, and in what way(s) at checkmate?
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
If there were countless sincere
believers in unicorns I would do the research. Not to do so under these
circumstances is a cop-out.
A "unicorn" is what Marco-Polo called a one horned rhino.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I would I waste time looking for your imaginary god.
As I said I was where you are. You cannot know this without
research. Without research it's only be a personal belief, as
such it is no different from theist who also believe. It's only
belief.
The fact that their own faith is in no way superior to any other religious
belief is yet another easy basic starting line they can't get as "far" as. In
fact the existence of their own faith usually clearly appears to be another easy
basic starting line they can't get as "far" as.
There were many people who once frequented this newsgroup who, in my
opinion, had very good arguments,
Can you list any arguments you consider good? I've yet to see even a
respectable argument from the strong atheist position, considering that it's
entirely faith based though they're ashamed to even admit they have any faith,
and that it's almost always dependant on the lie that there's "no evidence" of
god's existence though they've proven to have no idea at all What sort of
evidence....they think should exist if there's a god associated with this
planet.
Post by Wm. Esque
but few any longer participate.
Personally, I do not have any desire to "force" my beliefs on anyone.
Indeed, it a charge that one often notes, IE an accusation against
religious people while at the same time atheist use courts and the law
to force God from the from the communities and the nation.
Maybe it's ok for them to force the influence of their beliefs on other
people as long as they continue to insist they have no beliefs?
Post by Wm. Esque
In doing so
they are effectively denying, removing and changing the religious
traditions and heritage of the US. The phrase of separation of church
and state is not found in the constitution, so they turn to a letter
by Jefferson to justify their war on religion. But Jefferson was only
John Dickinson, Governor Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,
Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman,
James Wilson, and George Wythe.
So, why select out one writer from many then quote mine from
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist. Should the letters
from other writers of the constitution be cited in making laws?
They're opposed to anything that conflicts with what they want to believe,
while at the same time revealing their shame in their own belief by denying they
have one even as they prove that they do. Dishonesty is their main tool.
Wm. Esque
2016-04-09 20:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
I suggest you reread your own statement. The fallacy you posted is below.
"Billions of people are convinced..."
That fits the classic example of argumentum ad populum.
When you take only _part_ of my comment, and pretend it's
my argument - that's distortion.
Post by Bob Officer
Do you ever take off your blinders of bias?
I've been where you are in the not too distant past. But I did my
_OWN_ research, rather than just read anti-theist propaganda.
Research is looking at _both_ sides, not just one.
That's one of the the easy basic starting lines strong atheists can't get as
"far" as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
And yet your argument is in the form of a fallacy.
As you restated it- perhaps it would.
Post by Bob Officer
A claim unsupported by evidence is considered ridiculous, and defaults to
the negative.
I've studiously avoided making any claim, the claim is yours! And I've
challenged you!
From my experience with them it's _VERY!!!_ rare that they can even attempt
to meet a challenge, however easy it seems that it should be for them to do so.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Any theist claim, minus supporting evidence is ridiculous.
I've made _no_ claim. Instead, I challenged your claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
I need not go and waste time for something which don't exist.
Yet, you Know this without doing any research, _HOW_? By allowing others
to do your thinking for you! This strongly suggest you have succumbed to
ant-theist propaganda. And you know _only_ one side
of the issue! In any fair trial the jury has to evaluate both sides
of a case before arriving at an honest conclusion.
They want to deny all evidence that does exist, which goes way beyond
acknowledging it and saying that it's not persuasive to them. Such a denial is
based entirely on dishonesty. Even so their denial, and even IF they could
acknoledge and reject, tells us they believe that if there really is a God
associated with this planet there "should be" more/better/stronger/clearer
evidence that what there is. Since they make it clear they believe that even
though amusingly they're almost always too ashamed to admit it, I've often
presented them with a challenge to see if any of them have any idea at all what
they think they're trying to talk about when they demand evidence. The challenge
has defeated every one of them entirely every time any of them has ever been
presented with it. The challenge is for them to try to explain WHAT sort of
evidence they believe there should be, WHERE they believe it should be, WHY they
think God should make it available to us, and WHEN they think he should or
should have presented it if there truly is a God associated with Earth. That
simple challenge to try to explain what they think they're trying to talk about
has always defeated them entirely both as individuals and as a group.
If one knows one side only, then, or if one thinks evidence is non
existent, then they are exactly where this mindset leaves them.
But in all honesty, most evidence is subjective and in interpreted
within an overriding pre-existing belief-set.
They can't bring themselves to be that honest about it, and may not even be
able to comprehend what you pointed out, as well as the other things I mentioned
about them above.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I do not waste time looking for the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the
purple unicorn in your lower garden.
Nor do I, since no one seriously believes in these childhood stories,
so, there is no reason to do research.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as. They can't recognise any distinction between things we know to be fictitious
like the EB and Santa, and the possibility of God's existence which no one could
possibly know is fictitious even if it is. Not even in regards to this planet
alone much less other places in the galaxy, and universe...
As one respondent commented, "we are at checkmate".
Who are the "we" being referred to, and in what way(s) at checkmate?
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
If there were countless sincere
believers in unicorns I would do the research. Not to do so under these
circumstances is a cop-out.
A "unicorn" is what Marco-Polo called a one horned rhino.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I would I waste time looking for your imaginary god.
As I said I was where you are. You cannot know this without
research. Without research it's only be a personal belief, as
such it is no different from theist who also believe. It's only
belief.
The fact that their own faith is in no way superior to any other religious
belief is yet another easy basic starting line they can't get as "far" as. In
fact the existence of their own faith usually clearly appears to be another easy
basic starting line they can't get as "far" as.
There were many people who once frequented this newsgroup who, in my
opinion, had very good arguments,
Can you list any arguments you consider good? I've yet to see even a
respectable argument from the strong atheist position,
No, I was refering to several people who were advocates to creationism
or intelligent design, no atheist.
considering that it's
Post by m***@.
entirely faith based though they're ashamed to even admit they have any faith,
and that it's almost always dependant on the lie that there's "no evidence" of
god's existence though they've proven to have no idea at all What sort of
evidence....they think should exist if there's a god associated with this
planet.
Post by Wm. Esque
but few any longer participate.
Personally, I do not have any desire to "force" my beliefs on anyone.
Indeed, it a charge that one often notes, IE an accusation against
religious people while at the same time atheist use courts and the law
to force God from the from the communities and the nation.
Maybe it's ok for them to force the influence of their beliefs on other
people as long as they continue to insist they have no beliefs?
Their fundamental belief is there is no deity, no creator no designer.
This is nothing more than beliefs.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
In doing so
they are effectively denying, removing and changing the religious
traditions and heritage of the US. The phrase of separation of church
and state is not found in the constitution, so they turn to a letter
by Jefferson to justify their war on religion. But Jefferson was only
John Dickinson, Governor Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,
Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman,
James Wilson, and George Wythe.
So, why select out one writer from many then quote mine from
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist. Should the letters
from other writers of the constitution be cited in making laws?
They're opposed to anything that conflicts with what they want to believe,
while at the same time revealing their shame in their own belief by denying they
have one even as they prove that they do. Dishonesty is their main tool.
One thing I often noticed is that they have a kindergarten concept of
religion. They cannot conceive of a creation or design independent
of the bible or religion. They have a strong desire to link the two.
m***@.
2016-04-14 18:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
Really? I guess you never studied logic or fallacies?
Yes, you are referring the the argumentum ad populum. But that wasn't
offered evidence. Instead, I intended this as a contrast between you and
countless other people. When one thinks he is right and the world is
wrong, He needs to examine you own position.
I suggest you reread your own statement. The fallacy you posted is below.
"Billions of people are convinced..."
That fits the classic example of argumentum ad populum.
When you take only _part_ of my comment, and pretend it's
my argument - that's distortion.
Post by Bob Officer
Do you ever take off your blinders of bias?
I've been where you are in the not too distant past. But I did my
_OWN_ research, rather than just read anti-theist propaganda.
Research is looking at _both_ sides, not just one.
That's one of the the easy basic starting lines strong atheists can't get as
"far" as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
You just committed by he fallacy of "appeal to the popular or common
belief".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
Post by Wm. Esque
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
The burden of proof belongs to the theist.
The person making the claim, bears the burden of proof.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
And yet your argument is in the form of a fallacy.
As you restated it- perhaps it would.
Post by Bob Officer
A claim unsupported by evidence is considered ridiculous, and defaults to
the negative.
I've studiously avoided making any claim, the claim is yours! And I've
challenged you!
From my experience with them it's _VERY!!!_ rare that they can even attempt
to meet a challenge, however easy it seems that it should be for them to do so.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Any theist claim, minus supporting evidence is ridiculous.
I've made _no_ claim. Instead, I challenged your claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Since they have no proof, the theist resort of logical fallacies, errors in
logic and poor thinking.
And how would you know? If you refuse to do the research _YOURSELF_ then
you're not thinking for yourself. IOW you are succumbing to anti-theist
propaganda.
Post by Bob Officer
Until the there is some supporting evidence to support the claim of a god
or gods, all such are simply dismissed as ridiculous.
There may be evidence, but you will never discover it yourself. Theist
owe you _nothing_. They have _no_ obligation to you at all what-so-ever!
I need not go and waste time for something which don't exist.
Yet, you Know this without doing any research, _HOW_? By allowing others
to do your thinking for you! This strongly suggest you have succumbed to
ant-theist propaganda. And you know _only_ one side
of the issue! In any fair trial the jury has to evaluate both sides
of a case before arriving at an honest conclusion.
They want to deny all evidence that does exist, which goes way beyond
acknowledging it and saying that it's not persuasive to them. Such a denial is
based entirely on dishonesty. Even so their denial, and even IF they could
acknoledge and reject, tells us they believe that if there really is a God
associated with this planet there "should be" more/better/stronger/clearer
evidence that what there is. Since they make it clear they believe that even
though amusingly they're almost always too ashamed to admit it, I've often
presented them with a challenge to see if any of them have any idea at all what
they think they're trying to talk about when they demand evidence. The challenge
has defeated every one of them entirely every time any of them has ever been
presented with it. The challenge is for them to try to explain WHAT sort of
evidence they believe there should be, WHERE they believe it should be, WHY they
think God should make it available to us, and WHEN they think he should or
should have presented it if there truly is a God associated with Earth. That
simple challenge to try to explain what they think they're trying to talk about
has always defeated them entirely both as individuals and as a group.
If one knows one side only, then, or if one thinks evidence is non
existent, then they are exactly where this mindset leaves them.
But in all honesty, most evidence is subjective and in interpreted
within an overriding pre-existing belief-set.
They can't bring themselves to be that honest about it, and may not even be
able to comprehend what you pointed out, as well as the other things I mentioned
about them above.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I do not waste time looking for the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the
purple unicorn in your lower garden.
Nor do I, since no one seriously believes in these childhood stories,
so, there is no reason to do research.
That's another one of the easy basic starting lines they can't get as "far"
as. They can't recognise any distinction between things we know to be fictitious
like the EB and Santa, and the possibility of God's existence which no one could
possibly know is fictitious even if it is. Not even in regards to this planet
alone much less other places in the galaxy, and universe...
As one respondent commented, "we are at checkmate".
Who are the "we" being referred to, and in what way(s) at checkmate?
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
If there were countless sincere
believers in unicorns I would do the research. Not to do so under these
circumstances is a cop-out.
A "unicorn" is what Marco-Polo called a one horned rhino.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
I would I waste time looking for your imaginary god.
As I said I was where you are. You cannot know this without
research. Without research it's only be a personal belief, as
such it is no different from theist who also believe. It's only
belief.
The fact that their own faith is in no way superior to any other religious
belief is yet another easy basic starting line they can't get as "far" as. In
fact the existence of their own faith usually clearly appears to be another easy
basic starting line they can't get as "far" as.
There were many people who once frequented this newsgroup who, in my
opinion, had very good arguments,
Can you list any arguments you consider good? I've yet to see even a
respectable argument from the strong atheist position,
No, I was refering to several people who were advocates to creationism
or intelligent design, no atheist.
considering that it's
Post by m***@.
entirely faith based though they're ashamed to even admit they have any faith,
and that it's almost always dependant on the lie that there's "no evidence" of
god's existence though they've proven to have no idea at all What sort of
evidence....they think should exist if there's a god associated with this
planet.
Post by Wm. Esque
but few any longer participate.
Personally, I do not have any desire to "force" my beliefs on anyone.
Indeed, it a charge that one often notes, IE an accusation against
religious people while at the same time atheist use courts and the law
to force God from the from the communities and the nation.
Maybe it's ok for them to force the influence of their beliefs on other
people as long as they continue to insist they have no beliefs?
Their fundamental belief is there is no deity, no creator no designer.
Yes but they lie because they're ashamed to have a belief, so they absurdly
try to make other people believe their belief is not a belief. It's amusing, but
pathetic.
Post by Wm. Esque
This is nothing more than beliefs.
How do they get away with persuading anyone to believe such an obvious
belief is not a belief? Or is everyone as aware that they're lying as we are?
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
In doing so
they are effectively denying, removing and changing the religious
traditions and heritage of the US. The phrase of separation of church
and state is not found in the constitution, so they turn to a letter
by Jefferson to justify their war on religion. But Jefferson was only
John Dickinson, Governor Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams,
Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman,
James Wilson, and George Wythe.
So, why select out one writer from many then quote mine from
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist. Should the letters
from other writers of the constitution be cited in making laws?
They're opposed to anything that conflicts with what they want to believe,
while at the same time revealing their shame in their own belief by denying they
have one even as they prove that they do. Dishonesty is their main tool.
One thing I often noticed is that they have a kindergarten concept of
religion. They cannot conceive of a creation or design independent
of the bible or religion. They have a strong desire to link the two.
They can't think realistically about the possibility that there's any type
of god associated with this planet, or anywhere at all in most cases. As you
pointed out they're only capable of "a kindergarten concept" if that, yet they
want people to consider them great authorities on the subject. Those who are
least able to think about a topic want everyone to believe they somehow know
most about it.
m***@.
2016-03-28 01:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
Define "blind faith".
Belief without data, observation or evidence.
How can you claim, there is no evidence? Billions of people are convinced
that God exist and that he created the universe, the Earth and life itself.
What research have you, personally done which falsifies the idea that
God exist or that he had he is responsible for the creation of the
universe and life?
Not only is there none any of them could have done, but they also as
individuals and as a group are unable to imagine what sort of evidence they
think there should be, where they think it should be, why they think it should
be available to humans on Earth, or/and when they think it should be/have been
made available if there truly is any sort of god associated with this planet.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-25 01:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed hypothesis
should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.

Theists don't test their beliefs.

Sylvia.
Evil Roy Slade
2016-03-25 01:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Bullshit.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-25 01:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Bullshit.
The existence of God is not testable.

Sylvia.
Evil Roy Slade
2016-03-25 01:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Bullshit.
The existence of God is not testable.
That's beside the point, and it depends entirely on how you define
testable, plus your unstated criteria for what constitutes evidence.

I was once a theist and tested my beliefs, consequently I tossed all
gods of all religions. So much for your emphatic declaration and the
unthinking assumptions you support it with.
Dale
2016-03-25 01:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
unthinking
would this be abstract? or just inference around unknowns without end, or
something?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Evil Roy Slade
2016-03-25 01:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
unthinking
would this be abstract? or just inference around unknowns without end, or
something?
Neither. It's evidence that Sylvia doesn't test her beliefs.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-25 02:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Bullshit.
The existence of God is not testable.
That's beside the point, and it depends entirely on how you define
testable, plus your unstated criteria for what constitutes evidence.
I was once a theist and tested my beliefs, consequently I tossed all
gods of all religions. So much for your emphatic declaration and the
unthinking assumptions you support it with.
You may have decided that there was nothing to support your beliefs.
That's not the same as testing them.

There is no conceivable way to distinguish the existence of God from the
non-existence of God, because the "theory" of God does not make testable
predictions.

It is reasonable to take the view that there's no better reason to
believe in God than to believe in undetectable Unicorns, or anything
else that could be believed in but not demonstrated. A thinking person
might decide that there's no point believing in God therefore.

Most theists don't get that far, because they were too well
indoctrinated when they were children (a kind of child abuse, IMHO).

Sylvia.
Evil Roy Slade
2016-03-25 02:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Bullshit.
The existence of God is not testable.
That's beside the point, and it depends entirely on how you define
testable, plus your unstated criteria for what constitutes evidence.
I was once a theist and tested my beliefs, consequently I tossed all
gods of all religions. So much for your emphatic declaration and the
unthinking assumptions you support it with.
You may have decided that there was nothing to support your beliefs.
That's not the same as testing them.
You presumptuous fuckwit. How dare you make up bullshit and try to paint
me with it in order to cover your lame ass merely because some thing is
unfathomable to you.
Post by Sylvia Else
There is no conceivable way to distinguish the existence of God from the
non-existence of God, because the "theory" of God does not make testable
predictions.
So, what is the 'the "theory" of God'?
Post by Sylvia Else
It is reasonable to take the view that there's no better reason to
believe in God than to believe in undetectable Unicorns, or anything
else that could be believed in but not demonstrated. A thinking person
might decide that there's no point believing in God therefore.
Most theists don't get that far, because they were too well
indoctrinated when they were children (a kind of child abuse, IMHO).
Hahahahah! I made you move your goalposts. First it was an all
encompassing statement, now it's just 'most'.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
You're not smart by half. I hope you don't include yourself in the set
of thinking people.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-25 03:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Bullshit.
The existence of God is not testable.
That's beside the point, and it depends entirely on how you define
testable, plus your unstated criteria for what constitutes evidence.
I was once a theist and tested my beliefs, consequently I tossed all
gods of all religions. So much for your emphatic declaration and the
unthinking assumptions you support it with.
You may have decided that there was nothing to support your beliefs.
That's not the same as testing them.
You presumptuous fuckwit. How dare you make up bullshit and try to paint
me with it in order to cover your lame ass merely because some thing is
unfathomable to you.
Post by Sylvia Else
There is no conceivable way to distinguish the existence of God from the
non-existence of God, because the "theory" of God does not make testable
predictions.
So, what is the 'the "theory" of God'?
Post by Sylvia Else
It is reasonable to take the view that there's no better reason to
believe in God than to believe in undetectable Unicorns, or anything
else that could be believed in but not demonstrated. A thinking person
might decide that there's no point believing in God therefore.
Most theists don't get that far, because they were too well
indoctrinated when they were children (a kind of child abuse, IMHO).
Hahahahah! I made you move your goalposts. First it was an all
encompassing statement, now it's just 'most'.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
You're not smart by half. I hope you don't include yourself in the set
of thinking people.
You do seem to be taking this rather personally.

Sylvia.
m***@.
2016-03-28 01:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Evil Roy Slade
Post by Sylvia Else
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Bullshit.
The existence of God is not testable.
That's beside the point, and it depends entirely on how you define
testable, plus your unstated criteria for what constitutes evidence.
I was once a theist and tested my beliefs
How?
Dale
2016-03-25 01:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.

Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time. People have applied it and it works. They haven't tested everything,
but neither have atheists.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
Evil Roy Slade
2016-03-25 01:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time.
It's called groupthink, you blithering nong. It has 'passed "some" test
of time' because most people are mentally lazy, preferring to have
someone tell them what to believe rather than discovering for themselves.
raven1
2016-03-25 02:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
What dressing would you like for that word salad, Dale? Observation of
what? And I'm baffled at how the material can be non-empirical. What
the Sam Hill is it that you're trying to say?
Post by Dale
Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time.
So what?
Post by Dale
People have applied it and it works. They haven't tested everything,
but neither have atheists.
Um, what?
Dale
2016-03-25 04:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
What dressing would you like for that word salad, Dale? Observation of
what? And I'm baffled at how the material can be non-empirical. What
the Sam Hill is it that you're trying to say?
Creamy Italian.

Angels, etc.

There is a difference between material and empirical, I think. Material is
just physics based things. empirical is the process of testing and results,
not necessarily of material things.
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time.
So what?
Agnostic leaning theist ...
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
People have applied it and it works. They haven't tested everything,
but neither have atheists.
Um, what?
No tested theory of everything/anything.
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
raven1
2016-03-25 16:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
What dressing would you like for that word salad, Dale? Observation of
what? And I'm baffled at how the material can be non-empirical. What
the Sam Hill is it that you're trying to say?
Creamy Italian.
Angels, etc.
There is a difference between material and empirical, I think. Material is
just physics based things. empirical is the process of testing and results,
not necessarily of material things.
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time.
So what?
Agnostic leaning theist ...
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
People have applied it and it works. They haven't tested everything,
but neither have atheists.
Um, what?
No tested theory of everything/anything.
On reading your reply, I find myself reminded of a line from Robert
Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons", where More tells Howard "I trust I
make myself obscure".
Wm. Esque
2016-03-25 16:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
What dressing would you like for that word salad, Dale? Observation of
what? And I'm baffled at how the material can be non-empirical. What
the Sam Hill is it that you're trying to say?
Creamy Italian.
Angels, etc.
There is a difference between material and empirical, I think. Material is
just physics based things. empirical is the process of testing and results,
not necessarily of material things.
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time.
So what?
Agnostic leaning theist ...
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
People have applied it and it works. They haven't tested everything,
but neither have atheists.
Um, what?
No tested theory of everything/anything.
On reading your reply, I find myself reminded of a line from Robert
Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons", where More tells Howard "I trust I
make myself obscure".
False! I trust my wife: does that trust make me obscure?
Les Hellawell
2016-03-25 12:00:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:40:58 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
What dressing would you like for that word salad, Dale? Observation of
what? And I'm baffled at how the material can be non-empirical. What
the Sam Hill is it that you're trying to say?
Post by Dale
Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time.
So what?
Coercion.

Under Elizabeth and later monarch
people used to get fined if they did not attend CofE churches on
Sundays. The fine was well beyind the peasants ability to pay so they
would end up in prison if they stayed away without a valid excuse
No chance a home church movement then eh 'Dale'

The object was to stamp out the catholic religion but it applied to
every Englishman whether a secret atheist or not (nobody dared admit
they were atheist in those days. It was not physically healthy)

You could be declared insane merely for asking some of the more
obvious questions of the religion.

and now, like all the religions that have come and gone before it is
now well past its use-by date and is collapsing in the educated west.

True it is exapanding in Africa amongst the uneducated people
deep in poverty but that is ideal breeding ground for the religion
with it many promises that are probably false
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
People have applied it and it works.
Really?
Post by raven1
They haven't tested everything,
Post by Dale
but neither have atheists.
Um, what?
Les Hellawell
Grreting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote::
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sensehe
Albert van der Horst
2016-04-12 15:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les Hellawell
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:40:58 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like
that? Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith? Since conjecture can proceed
hypothesis should it be recognized as a part of the scientific process?
In the scientific process, after both conjecture and hypothesis (if
they're really different) there comes testing.
Theists don't test their beliefs.
Theists claim observation, that is at least material, not empirical.
What dressing would you like for that word salad, Dale? Observation of
what? And I'm baffled at how the material can be non-empirical. What
the Sam Hill is it that you're trying to say?
Post by Dale
Theist claims have existed a very long time, it has passed "some" test of
time.
So what?
Coercion.
Under Elizabeth and later monarch
people used to get fined if they did not attend CofE churches on
Sundays. The fine was well beyind the peasants ability to pay so they
would end up in prison if they stayed away without a valid excuse
No chance a home church movement then eh 'Dale'
More modern examples:
Hitler obliged people to pick a church and pay church taxes,
a practice that survived the 1000-year Reich, maybe to the present
day.
The US imposed dictator Suharto of Indonesia had a list of 5 religions
to choose from. If you refused you were deemed a communist and you
were a candidate to become one of the millions massacred by him.
Suharto was a devote catholic (linked to the dreaded Opus
Dei). This may have done a lot to promote Islam in Indonesia.

<SNIP>
Groetjes Albert

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
***@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
m***@.
2016-03-28 01:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
Strong agnosticism is second in that respect.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-29 03:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?

Sylvia.
Bob Officer
2016-03-29 21:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Actually atheist depends of facts and evidence, not faith. Minus supporting
evidence faith based claims are simply dismissed outright because the are
ridiculous in nature.

Belief is a faith based concept, often is dogmatic in nature, taken as
being true without supporting facts, data or evidence, and illogically held
to be true in the face of contradictory facts, data and evidence.

Why do theist keep injecting the concept of belief into the question?

Are they so deeply indoctrinated that their world would fall apart without
hollow belief system to hold it together?
m***@.
2016-04-04 00:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Actually atheist depends of facts and evidence, not faith. Minus supporting
evidence faith based claims are simply dismissed outright because the are
ridiculous in nature.
Belief is a faith based concept,
Faith is the amount of confidence a person has that a belief is correct.
Post by Bob Officer
often is dogmatic in nature, taken as
being true without supporting facts, data or evidence,
Faith is the amount of confidence a person has that a belief is correct
REGARDLESS of how it's arrived at. That ones so obvious even an atheist should
be able to comprehend.
Post by Bob Officer
and illogically held
Why do you think your belief that there's no God associated with this planet
is illogically held?
Post by Bob Officer
to be true in the face of contradictory facts, data and evidence.
What contradictory facts, data and evidence would you like people to believe
exist regarding the possibility of God's existence?
Post by Bob Officer
Why do theist keep injecting the concept of belief into the question?
All we have is our own beliefs, REGARDLESS of how they're arrived at. Even
an atheist SHOULD have the mental ability to comprehend a fact as basic and easy
to understand as that, so why are you so bewildered by it do you have any idea?
Post by Bob Officer
Are they so deeply indoctrinated that their world would fall apart without
hollow belief system to hold it together?
I consider the possibility that there's no type of God or gods associated
with this planet, but instead of putting faith in that belief being the correct
one as you do I move on beyond your ability and consider other possibilities as
well. It's people like YOU whose world would become terrifying if you could ever
try to think beyond the tiny little mental safety zone you've so obviously put
all your faith in and taken refuge in.
Wm. Esque
2016-03-31 04:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
2016-03-31 04:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.

To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.

Sylvia.
Bob Officer
2016-03-31 14:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.
To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.
That could be true but isn't.

A theist looks at the world and when asked how this came to be, in the end
the theist invents a force the theist calls god. When asked where did god
come form, rather than seeing god is an excuse for ignorance, starts
creating a tale.

An atheist looks at the world, and in the end, will say We do not know what
caused the Big Bang, but continues to look for the cause.

The two are not equal, but are opposite.

An atheist works at gaining knowledge and through knowledge gains an
understanding. The atheist is not afraid of the unknown, and studies a
problem seeking to fix it, using his knowledge.

The theist is acceptance of ignorance, and in his ignorance is afraid of
the unknown. The theist allows their fear to rule their actions, triggering
a fight or flight reaction.

No theist and atheism do not appear to be equal at all.
Wm. Esque
2016-04-01 01:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.
To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.
That could be true but isn't.
A theist looks at the world and when asked how this came to be, in the end
the theist invents a force the theist calls god. When asked where did god
come form, rather than seeing god is an excuse for ignorance, starts
creating a tale.
Where did you get this idea from? You did not justify this opinion.
Furthermore, it's nothing any theist would agree with. Therefore, one
can only conclude you are deliberately misrepresenting theists.
Post by Bob Officer
An atheist looks at the world, and in the end, will say We do not know what
caused the Big Bang, but continues to look for the cause.
Good!
Post by Bob Officer
The two are not equal, but are opposite.
An atheist works at gaining knowledge and through knowledge gains an
understanding. The atheist is not afraid of the unknown, and studies a
problem seeking to fix it, using his knowledge.
Okay!
Post by Bob Officer
The theist is acceptance of ignorance, and in his ignorance is afraid of
the unknown. The theist allows their fear to rule their actions, triggering
a fight or flight reaction.
Again a personal opinion about something you know virtually nothing
about, since you have done no research unless it's just scanning
anti-theist websites.
Post by Bob Officer
No theist and atheism do not appear to be equal at all.
I see atheist and religious fundamentalist as opposite side of the
same coin. Neither knows anything, but both are equally cock-sure they
are totally right.
Bob Officer
2016-04-01 06:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.
To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.
That could be true but isn't.
A theist looks at the world and when asked how this came to be, in the end
the theist invents a force the theist calls god. When asked where did god
come form, rather than seeing god is an excuse for ignorance, starts
creating a tale.
Where did you get this idea from? You did not justify this opinion.
Furthermore, it's nothing any theist would agree with. Therefore, one
can only conclude you are deliberately misrepresenting theists.
It is an observation.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
An atheist looks at the world, and in the end, will say We do not know what
caused the Big Bang, but continues to look for the cause.
Good!
Post by Bob Officer
The two are not equal, but are opposite.
An atheist works at gaining knowledge and through knowledge gains an
understanding. The atheist is not afraid of the unknown, and studies a
problem seeking to fix it, using his knowledge.
Okay!
Post by Bob Officer
The theist is acceptance of ignorance, and in his ignorance is afraid of
the unknown. The theist allows their fear to rule their actions, triggering
a fight or flight reaction.
Again a personal opinion about something you know virtually nothing
about, since you have done no research unless it's just scanning
anti-theist websites.
An observation. Especially if you take a class in comparative religion.
However by last class in comp-rel was in the late 60s
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
No theism and atheism do not appear to be equal at all.
I see atheist and religious fundamentalist as opposite side of the
same coin. Neither knows anything, but both are equally cock-sure they
are totally right.
The religious fundy is at the extreme. The atheist may or may not be at the
extreme.
--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
Wm. Esque
2016-04-01 13:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.
To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.
That could be true but isn't.
A theist looks at the world and when asked how this came to be, in the end
the theist invents a force the theist calls god. When asked where did god
come form, rather than seeing god is an excuse for ignorance, starts
creating a tale.
Where did you get this idea from? You did not justify this opinion.
Furthermore, it's nothing any theist would agree with. Therefore, one
can only conclude you are deliberately misrepresenting theists.
It is an observation.
It might be a valid observation as applied to a few sects and
extremist cults, but not for the mainstream Christians.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
An atheist looks at the world, and in the end, will say We do not know what
caused the Big Bang, but continues to look for the cause.
Good!
Post by Bob Officer
The two are not equal, but are opposite.
An atheist works at gaining knowledge and through knowledge gains an
understanding. The atheist is not afraid of the unknown, and studies a
problem seeking to fix it, using his knowledge.
Okay!
Post by Bob Officer
The theist is acceptance of ignorance, and in his ignorance is afraid of
the unknown. The theist allows their fear to rule their actions, triggering
a fight or flight reaction.
Again a personal opinion about something you know virtually nothing
about, since you have done no research unless it's just scanning
anti-theist websites.
An observation. Especially if you take a class in comparative religion.
However by last class in comp-rel was in the late 60s
Comparative religion compared and contrasted the worlds religions,
drawing similarities such as the "golden rule".
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
No theism and atheism do not appear to be equal at all.
I see atheist and religious fundamentalist as opposite side of the
same coin. Neither knows anything, but both are equally cock-sure they
are totally right.
The religious fundy is at the extreme. The atheist may or may not be at the
extreme.
I don't know who you are refering to as fundys. Perhaps Mormans, J.W.s etc.
Wm. Esque
2016-04-01 01:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.
To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.
Not exactly. A few years ago I was where you are today. However, in
reading about recent discoveries concerning the universe and how it came
about, I came to the conclusion that the odds favor the involvement of
some super intellect. I am in reference to the Anthropic Principle(AP),
first advanced by a colleague of Stephen Hawkins, and Roger Penrose,
theoretical physicist Brandon Carter. While it is controversial as to
what the A.P. means, only a few scientist deny the reality of these
discoveries. These are refereed to as fundamental constants. They have
very narrow numerical values about 1% kind of things. Any slight change
in any of these values would alter the universe or prevent it from existing.
Examples:

1)The gravitational constant: which determines strength of gravity. If any
less then stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb
barrier to start thermonuclear fusion. No stars no sunlight.
If the gravity constant were higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel
before life could appear and evolve.
2)The strong force coupling constant is that which holds particles together
in atom's nucleus. If this force were weaker, then multi-proton
particles could not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element
in the
Universe.
If the strong force were stronger, elements lighter than iron would
be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, this heats core of Earth.
3) The electromagnetic coupling constant determines the strength of
electromagnetic force which holds electrons to nucleus. If it were less,
then no electrons held in their respective valences. If stronger,
electrons will not bond with other atoms; either way, there would be no
molecules.
All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic
building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these
constants is very narrow range, only about 1 to 5% for the constants.
Beyond this range, life and particularly intelligent life)
would be impossible.
Many scientist and philosphers turn to multiverses to explain
these "fine tuned constants".

They argue that it's possible to imagine numerous different universes
with entirely different kinds of universes each with it's own set of
fundamental constants.

"For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have
a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form.
Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear
fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker
universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight. Why don't
those Universes exist? Why does our Universe, with its special value
exist rather than another? Is there something fundamental to our physics
that makes the present values for physical constants expected?

This dilemma of the extremely narrow range of values for physical
constants is allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as
ourselves. If the Universe has those properties which allow life to
develop within it then there must exists one possible Universe
'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining `observers'
(theological
universe).

Or is there an Alternative: The multiverse~ Which could explain how our
universe 'lucked out". Where there are infinite numbers of universes
each with its own set of fundamental constants the chances of at least
one universe with the necessary values for intelligent life to exist is
a matter of stasitics.

Other universes which are very different universes (THE MULTIVERSE)is
necessary to explain how our universe just happened to have the
constants with the necessary values for life and especially intelligent
life to exist and evolve: and for the existence of our Universe.

So, in my mind it comes down to what is the most reasonable, the
multivers, or a universe which somehow "knew" we were coming.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
2016-04-01 02:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.
To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.
Not exactly. A few years ago I was where you are today. However, in
reading about recent discoveries concerning the universe and how it came
about, I came to the conclusion that the odds favor the involvement of
some super intellect.
You talk about odds, but you offer nothing to suggest that your
assessment of the odds is anything more than a choice designed to
support your belief.
Post by Wm. Esque
I am in reference to the Anthropic Principle(AP),
first advanced by a colleague of Stephen Hawkins, and Roger Penrose,
theoretical physicist Brandon Carter. While it is controversial as to
what the A.P. means, only a few scientist deny the reality of these
discoveries. These are refereed to as fundamental constants. They have
very narrow numerical values about 1% kind of things. Any slight change
in any of these values would alter the universe or prevent it from existing.
1)The gravitational constant: which determines strength of gravity. If any
less then stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb
barrier to start thermonuclear fusion. No stars no sunlight.
If the gravity constant were higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel
before life could appear and evolve.
2)The strong force coupling constant is that which holds particles together
in atom's nucleus. If this force were weaker, then multi-proton
particles could not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element
in the
Universe.
If the strong force were stronger, elements lighter than iron would
be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, this heats core of Earth.
3) The electromagnetic coupling constant determines the strength of
electromagnetic force which holds electrons to nucleus. If it were less,
then no electrons held in their respective valences. If stronger,
electrons will not bond with other atoms; either way, there would be no
molecules.
All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic
building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these
constants is very narrow range, only about 1 to 5% for the constants.
Beyond this range, life and particularly intelligent life)
would be impossible.
Many scientist and philosphers turn to multiverses to explain
these "fine tuned constants".
They argue that it's possible to imagine numerous different universes
with entirely different kinds of universes each with it's own set of
fundamental constants.
"For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have
a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form.
Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear
fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker
universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight. Why don't
those Universes exist? Why does our Universe, with its special value
exist rather than another? Is there something fundamental to our physics
that makes the present values for physical constants expected?
This dilemma of the extremely narrow range of values for physical
constants is allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as
ourselves. If the Universe has those properties which allow life to
develop within it then there must exists one possible Universe
'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining `observers'
(theological
universe).
Or is there an Alternative: The multiverse~ Which could explain how our
universe 'lucked out". Where there are infinite numbers of universes
each with its own set of fundamental constants the chances of at least
one universe with the necessary values for intelligent life to exist is
a matter of stasitics.
Other universes which are very different universes (THE MULTIVERSE)is
necessary to explain how our universe just happened to have the
constants with the necessary values for life and especially intelligent
life to exist and evolve: and for the existence of our Universe.
So, in my mind it comes down to what is the most reasonable, the
multivers, or a universe which somehow "knew" we were coming.
How can you possibly decide which is the most reasonable? Even if you
can decide, what's to say that the actual situation has to be the most
reasonable one?

Sylvia.
Wm. Esque
2016-04-01 05:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist
and Created the universe and life.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not
exist and did no create the universe and life.
To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be equal.
Not exactly. A few years ago I was where you are today. However, in
reading about recent discoveries concerning the universe and how it came
about, I came to the conclusion that the odds favor the involvement of
some super intellect.
You talk about odds, but you offer nothing to suggest that your
assessment of the odds is anything more than a choice designed to
support your belief.
No, I don't see it that way. I was not a believer, I gave religion very
little thought. I went to weddings and funerals and nothing else for
years. I didn't know whether God existed or not and I just didn't think
about it. I had other things to accomplish, like getting an education.
So, when I came across the Anthropic Principle it set me back. It
bothered me at first. I knew nothing on the multiverse, so I knew of
no way to explain what I learned about the A.P.. I'm still not totally
convinced There has to be an unforeseen explanation as to why the
two dozen or so cosmological constants have the values they do. Perhaps
the theory of everything (The TOE), if and when it's discovered will
provide answers. I consider myself a theist, however, I can turn it
lose at a moment notice if certain realities are explained. I listed
a few below and the purpose they serve.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Wm. Esque
I am in reference to the Anthropic Principle(AP),
first advanced by a colleague of Stephen Hawkins, and Roger Penrose,
theoretical physicist Brandon Carter. While it is controversial as to
what the A.P. means, only a few scientist deny the reality of these
discoveries. These are refereed to as fundamental constants. They have
very narrow numerical values about 1% kind of things. Any slight change
in any of these values would alter the universe or prevent it from existing.
1)The gravitational constant: which determines strength of gravity. If any
less then stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb
barrier to start thermonuclear fusion. No stars no sunlight.
If the gravity constant were higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel
before life could appear and evolve.
2)The strong force coupling constant is that which holds particles together
in atom's nucleus. If this force were weaker, then multi-proton
particles could not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element
in the
Universe.
If the strong force were stronger, elements lighter than iron would
be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, this heats core of Earth.
3) The electromagnetic coupling constant determines the strength of
electromagnetic force which holds electrons to nucleus. If it were less,
then no electrons held in their respective valences. If stronger,
electrons will not bond with other atoms; either way, there would be no
molecules.
All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic
building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these
constants is very narrow range, only about 1 to 5% for the constants.
Beyond this range, life and particularly intelligent life)
would be impossible.
Many scientist and philosphers turn to multiverses to explain
these "fine tuned constants".
They argue that it's possible to imagine numerous different universes
with entirely different kinds of universes each with it's own set of
fundamental constants.
"For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have
a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form.
Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear
fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker
universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight. Why don't
those Universes exist? Why does our Universe, with its special value
exist rather than another? Is there something fundamental to our physics
that makes the present values for physical constants expected?
This dilemma of the extremely narrow range of values for physical
constants is allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as
ourselves. If the Universe has those properties which allow life to
develop within it then there must exists one possible Universe
'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining `observers'
(theological
universe).
Or is there an Alternative: The multiverse~ Which could explain how our
universe 'lucked out". Where there are infinite numbers of universes
each with its own set of fundamental constants the chances of at least
one universe with the necessary values for intelligent life to exist is
a matter of stasitics.
Other universes which are very different universes (THE MULTIVERSE)is
necessary to explain how our universe just happened to have the
constants with the necessary values for life and especially intelligent
life to exist and evolve: and for the existence of our Universe.
So, in my mind it comes down to what is the most reasonable, the
multivers, or a universe which somehow "knew" we were coming.
How can you possibly decide which is the most reasonable? Even if you
can decide, what's to say that the actual situation has to be the most
reasonable one?
Frankly, I don't place much faith in the multiverse idea. We cannot
observe these universes, we cannot test them, we cannot travel to any of
them and there is no way, at present, to confirm the existence of any
universes, other than the one we reside in. So, to look to these
imaginary universes for an explanation (as to how our universe came to
have these very precise physical constants), to me seems foolhardy.
However, there are many scientist who take this multiverse path, since
from a scientific prospective, the idea of the alternative is clearly
unacceptable: any other possibility, no matter how far-fetched is
preferable.

But for me, I'm not dedicated to either possibility. But at present
I don't think these imagionary many universes is as reasonable to
the alternative.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
m***@.
2016-04-04 00:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
Sylvia Else
2016-04-04 02:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?

Sylvia.
Bob Officer
2016-04-04 17:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled. They fail to understand in the absence of
evidence, a claim can be dismissed. The concept of any deity existing isn't
supported by evidence. The logic end is to state the discussion is held in
abeyance until evidence is produced.

I hold that discussions with theist is as silly as the old debate about how
many angels can dance on a pin.
One needs to 1st prove their are angels or produce evidence of angels
existing before the discussion starts. To do otherwise is just futile and
wasteful of resources.
--
Logic is the bane of all religions. Religion requires people to stop
thinking and religion is just a method of controlling lazy people.
Alex W.
2016-04-05 15:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled. They fail to understand in the absence of
evidence, a claim can be dismissed. The concept of any deity existing isn't
supported by evidence. The logic end is to state the discussion is held in
abeyance until evidence is produced.
For form's sake, one should mention that a hard-evidence hard-science
proof is not the only permissible and legitimate technique in the
pursuit of god. One can shift to logical and/or philosophical tracks.
At its simplest, one merely posits "there is/isn't a god" and attempts
to prove the statement through logic and philosophical argument alone.
In fact, this is what most commonly happens when atheists and believers
debate (at least those who have more than two neurons to rub together
and who realise that trying to offer tangible evidence is a mug's game).
Post by Bob Officer
I hold that discussions with theist is as silly as the old debate about how
many angels can dance on a pin.
One needs to 1st prove their are angels or produce evidence of angels
existing before the discussion starts. To do otherwise is just futile and
wasteful of resources.
Futile and wasteful ... only for its primary purpose, the resolution of
the question whether a god exists.

There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Bob Officer
2016-04-05 16:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled. They fail to understand in the absence of
evidence, a claim can be dismissed. The concept of any deity existing isn't
supported by evidence. The logic end is to state the discussion is held in
abeyance until evidence is produced.
For form's sake, one should mention that a hard-evidence hard-science
proof is not the only permissible and legitimate technique in the
pursuit of god. One can shift to logical and/or philosophical tracks.
At its simplest, one merely posits "there is/isn't a god" and attempts
to prove the statement through logic and philosophical argument alone.
In fact, this is what most commonly happens when atheists and believers
debate (at least those who have more than two neurons to rub together
and who realise that trying to offer tangible evidence is a mug's game).
That's the rub. There is no reason to place the atheist on the defensive.
The case must be made by the theist. They are the ones offering the
explanation, for the events around us. When the thinking person looks back
at the common explanations used in the past, the invented gods fighting,
which was a common explanation in the past is now know to be false. The
thinking person stops looking to the baseless explanations and starts
looking to data based explanations.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Bob Officer
I hold that discussions with theist is as silly as the old debate about how
many angels can dance on a pin.
One needs to 1st prove their are angels or produce evidence of angels
existing before the discussion starts. To do otherwise is just futile and
wasteful of resources.
Futile and wasteful ... only for its primary purpose, the resolution of
the question whether a god exists.
Minus evidence of a real sky pixie, the decision defaults to the negative.
Leave fabled and baseless explanations in fairy tales.
Post by Alex W.
There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Or the dictates of the man on the pulpit.

I witnessed the froth which these warped control freaks can bring forth.
Their monologues and pronouncements which on the TV seem to hold the sheep
in thrall, changing them in an instant to lemmings running over the cliffs.
--
The sight of so many people abandoning the ability to think and reason, in
favor of mindless beliefs and hollow emotional swings, is scary.
BruceS
2016-04-05 16:35:03 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Alex W.
There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Or the dictates of the man on the pulpit.
IMO, it's always the man on the pulpit. Whatever the magic book being
invoked, it's the man interpreting that book that counts. Despite all
the horrific things in the Bible, I know of no priests who (openly)
advocate genocide, rape, slavery, etc. Instead, the modern ones pick
and choose from the Bible passages that support their "morality", such
as it is. The dictates of the deity are not important to the believers.
Post by Bob Officer
I witnessed the froth which these warped control freaks can bring forth.
Their monologues and pronouncements which on the TV seem to hold the sheep
in thrall, changing them in an instant to lemmings running over the cliffs.
Fine by me. Let the believers "run over the cliffs". The real problem
comes when they want to push the rest of us over the cliffs.
Bob Officer
2016-04-05 23:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceS
<snip>
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Alex W.
There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Or the dictates of the man on the pulpit.
IMO, it's always the man on the pulpit. Whatever the magic book being
invoked, it's the man interpreting that book that counts. Despite all
the horrific things in the Bible, I know of no priests who (openly)
advocate genocide, rape, slavery, etc. Instead, the modern ones pick
and choose from the Bible passages that support their "morality", such
as it is. The dictates of the deity are not important to the believers.
Remember the pulpit holders were against the American Revolution, they
frothed at the mouth about separatist of church and state. They general
thought slavery was good and used passages in the bible to support slavery.
That's all from history.
Personal knowledge was the churches in general supported the draft during
the Vietnam War, and some went so far as to open council and state there
was no such thing as being a Christian grounds for refusing the draft.
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
I witnessed the froth which these warped control freaks can bring forth.
Their monologues and pronouncements which on the TV seem to hold the sheep
in thrall, changing them in an instant to lemmings running over the cliffs.
Fine by me. Let the believers "run over the cliffs". The real problem
comes when they want to push the rest of us over the cliffs.
Least the stampede of lemmings drag us all down.
--
Father forgive them for they are gullible and easy to fool.
Wm. Esque
2016-04-06 01:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by BruceS
<snip>
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Alex W.
There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Or the dictates of the man on the pulpit.
IMO, it's always the man on the pulpit. Whatever the magic book being
invoked, it's the man interpreting that book that counts. Despite all
the horrific things in the Bible, I know of no priests who (openly)
advocate genocide, rape, slavery, etc. Instead, the modern ones pick
and choose from the Bible passages that support their "morality", such
as it is. The dictates of the deity are not important to the believers.
Remember the pulpit holders were against the American Revolution, they
frothed at the mouth about separatist of church and state. They general
thought slavery was good and used passages in the bible to support slavery.
That's all from history.
Personal knowledge was the churches in general supported the draft during
the Vietnam War, and some went so far as to open council and state there
was no such thing as being a Christian grounds for refusing the draft.
You post this crap without a shred of backup, just your "observation"
poor as they are. This is based on total total bias, poor observation
and anti theist print! just a one sided POV.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
I witnessed the froth which these warped control freaks can bring forth.
Their monologues and pronouncements which on the TV seem to hold the sheep
in thrall, changing them in an instant to lemmings running over the cliffs.
Fine by me. Let the believers "run over the cliffs". The real problem
comes when they want to push the rest of us over the cliffs.
Least the stampede of lemmings drag us all down.
Talk about lemmings atheist think alike - why is that!?
Bob Officer
2016-04-06 18:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by BruceS
<snip>
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Alex W.
There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Or the dictates of the man on the pulpit.
IMO, it's always the man on the pulpit. Whatever the magic book being
invoked, it's the man interpreting that book that counts. Despite all
the horrific things in the Bible, I know of no priests who (openly)
advocate genocide, rape, slavery, etc. Instead, the modern ones pick
and choose from the Bible passages that support their "morality", such
as it is. The dictates of the deity are not important to the believers.
Remember the pulpit holders were against the American Revolution, they
frothed at the mouth about separatist of church and state. They general
thought slavery was good and used passages in the bible to support slavery.
That's all from history.
Personal knowledge was the churches in general supported the draft during
the Vietnam War, and some went so far as to open council and state there
was no such thing as being a Christian grounds for refusing the draft.
You post this crap without a shred of backup, just your "observation"
poor as they are. This is based on total total bias, poor observation
and anti theist print! just a one sided POV.
The rants from the pulpit prior to and during the revolution war, and both
pre and post constitutional period are well published.

Start here and go back a bit more. Histrorical sermons can be found in
abundance. I have found far more against the revolution than for it.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
I witnessed the froth which these warped control freaks can bring forth.
Their monologues and pronouncements which on the TV seem to hold the sheep
in thrall, changing them in an instant to lemmings running over the cliffs.
Fine by me. Let the believers "run over the cliffs". The real problem
comes when they want to push the rest of us over the cliffs.
Least the stampede of lemmings drag us all down.
Talk about lemmings atheist think alike - why is that!?
There is no basis for a belief in any gods or god.
--
Belief in a priori is an unnatural constrain in critical thinking.
Alex W.
2016-04-06 15:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by BruceS
<snip>
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Alex W.
There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Or the dictates of the man on the pulpit.
IMO, it's always the man on the pulpit. Whatever the magic book being
invoked, it's the man interpreting that book that counts. Despite all
the horrific things in the Bible, I know of no priests who (openly)
advocate genocide, rape, slavery, etc. Instead, the modern ones pick
and choose from the Bible passages that support their "morality", such
as it is. The dictates of the deity are not important to the believers.
I would not put too much stock in current "good" behaviour.
Historically, the men in the pulpits have advocated all that, and more.
Until around 150 years ago, Christian priests routinely blessed and/or
preached all of the above, and they still supported and dispensed divine
blessing for some of them in living memory -- and I am not even counting
the outliers of clerics espousing the attempted genocides in Germany,
Bosnia and Rwanda....

Even assuming that a leopard can change its spots, I would still be
extremely confident that a conservative ideology like the world's three
bible-based monotheisms will take considerably longer than a generation
or three to genuinely change.
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
I witnessed the froth which these warped control freaks can bring forth.
Their monologues and pronouncements which on the TV seem to hold the sheep
in thrall, changing them in an instant to lemmings running over the cliffs.
Fine by me. Let the believers "run over the cliffs". The real problem
comes when they want to push the rest of us over the cliffs.
Quite.
And that is why they and their weird views cannot be left unopposed.
BruceS
2016-04-06 19:05:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by BruceS
<snip>
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Alex W.
There is, however, a secondary purpose: to oppose, counter or at least
mitigate the religious mindset and so to reduce its impact on all our
lives. Uncontested, the god-ridden mindset will happily attempt to
order society from the very shape and functioning of the nation down to
the day to day decisions of the individual according to the spurious
diktats of the deity. For all our sakes, this must not be allowed.
Or the dictates of the man on the pulpit.
IMO, it's always the man on the pulpit. Whatever the magic book being
invoked, it's the man interpreting that book that counts. Despite all
the horrific things in the Bible, I know of no priests who (openly)
advocate genocide, rape, slavery, etc. Instead, the modern ones pick
and choose from the Bible passages that support their "morality", such
as it is. The dictates of the deity are not important to the believers.
I would not put too much stock in current "good" behaviour.
Historically, the men in the pulpits have advocated all that, and more.
Until around 150 years ago, Christian priests routinely blessed and/or
preached all of the above, and they still supported and dispensed divine
blessing for some of them in living memory -- and I am not even counting
the outliers of clerics espousing the attempted genocides in Germany,
Bosnia and Rwanda....
I'm not disputing that at all. There remain some Christian preachers
whose "morality" is still far too Biblical. They just avoid the more
egregious evils promoted by the Bible. And you're right, it wasn't
very long ago that more of them advocated even worse parts. I'm just
saying that Christians have moved steadily away from the teachings of
the Bible, especially the worst parts of it. Cafeteria Christianity is
a move in the right direction. My original point was that the "diktats
of the deity" never matter, only the agenda of the priests, and of
their flocks.
Post by Alex W.
Even assuming that a leopard can change its spots, I would still be
extremely confident that a conservative ideology like the world's three
bible-based monotheisms will take considerably longer than a generation
or three to genuinely change.
I know plenty of people my own age who are still very loyal to
Christianity as it's presented by their clergy. Fortunately, I've seen
a lot more rebellion from their kids. My own upbringing was Christian,
and while I gave up on religion about age 10 I thought my brothers and
sisters were still pretty observant until the last few years, when I
found out one by one that they'd also (more quietly) given up
religion. That said, I also know people in their teens and twenties
who remain faithful. I believe, and hope, that the loud and frantic
actions of the religious right in the U.S. recently are the death
throes of Christian dominance. They realize they're an
ever-diminishing minority, and that no amount of hand-waving and magic
words will regain their supremacy. But maybe I'm just an idealistic
dreamer. Jews are so few in number, and so many of them either
apathetic or downright dismissive of the religion, that they hardly
count. As for Muslims, that's a whole different problem. They seem to
be gaining in both numbers and in adherence to the worst aspects of
their religion.
Post by Alex W.
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
I witnessed the froth which these warped control freaks can bring forth.
Their monologues and pronouncements which on the TV seem to hold the sheep
in thrall, changing them in an instant to lemmings running over the cliffs.
Fine by me. Let the believers "run over the cliffs". The real problem
comes when they want to push the rest of us over the cliffs.
Quite.
And that is why they and their weird views cannot be left unopposed.
Agreed. The slings and arrows of outrageous superstition need to be
opposed, and by being opposed, ended. First, though, we just need to
ensure that they aren't foisted on us.
m***@.
2016-04-09 14:19:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:10:34 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled.
The amount of faith a person has in the possibility that there's no god
associated with this planet IS what determines how strong an atheist the person
is or is not. It's something people who clearly appear to be strong atheists,
like yourself, show us they're horribly ashamed of.
To actually have no belief requires a person to be able to consider the
possibility that there is a god associated with this planet, or anything
anywhere, which is something none of you atheists have ever provided any
evidence that any of you are capable of doing.
Post by Bob Officer
They fail to understand in the absence of
evidence, a claim can be dismissed. The concept of any deity existing isn't
supported by evidence.
In order for you claim to even be considered you need to explain WHAT sort
of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you
think it should be available to us, and WHEN you think it should be or should
have been made available. Since you can't even attempt to address any of those
challenges you make it obvious you don't have any clue at all what you think
you're trying to talk about, and can't even pretend that you do.
Bob Officer
2016-04-10 03:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled.
The amount of faith a person has in the possibility that there's no god
See there is the I pass. Faith requires belief with out evidence. A atheist
has no faith. Their view is dependent only,on evidence. As long as you keep
injecting the nonsense of faith into this discussion, you will continue to
be though of as a theist troll, by most people.

This mindless injection of faith into the discuss is simple you even
to,refuse to consider a rational and logical argument.
Post by m***@.
associated with this planet IS what determines how strong an atheist the person
is or is not. It's something people who clearly appear to be strong atheists,
like yourself, show us they're horribly ashamed of.
To actually have no belief requires a person to be able to consider the
possibility that there is a god associated with this planet, or anything
anywhere, which is something none of you atheists have ever provided any
evidence that any of you are capable of doing.
Post by Bob Officer
They fail to understand in the absence of
evidence, a claim can be dismissed. The concept of any deity existing isn't
supported by evidence.
In order for you claim to even be considered you need to explain WHAT sort
of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you
think it should be available to us, and WHEN you think it should be or should
have been made available. Since you can't even attempt to address any of those
challenges you make it obvious you don't have any clue at all what you think
you're trying to talk about, and can't even pretend that you do.
--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
e***@hotmail.com
2016-04-12 17:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled.
The amount of faith a person has in the possibility that there's no god
See there is the I pass. Faith requires belief with out evidence. A atheist
has no faith. Their view is dependent only,on evidence. As long as you keep
injecting the nonsense of faith into this discussion, you will continue to
be though of as a theist troll, by most people.
This mindless injection of faith into the discuss is simple you even
to,refuse to consider a rational and logical argument.
I beleive in God. I believe in Jesus. I do not require people to believe what I believe. Nor do I require physical evidence to bolster my faith.

Furthermore, I do NOT believe in a "literal" reading of the Bible, or in a 7 day creation (we all know God goofed off for six days and then pulled an all nighter! :) ) Nor do I ask that my faith be taught as science or reality.
Bob Casanova
2016-04-12 17:53:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:21:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled.
The amount of faith a person has in the possibility that there's no god
See there is the I pass. Faith requires belief with out evidence. A atheist
has no faith. Their view is dependent only,on evidence. As long as you keep
injecting the nonsense of faith into this discussion, you will continue to
be though of as a theist troll, by most people.
This mindless injection of faith into the discuss is simple you even
to,refuse to consider a rational and logical argument.
I beleive in God. I believe in Jesus. I do not require people to believe what I believe. Nor do I require physical evidence to bolster my faith.
Furthermore, I do NOT believe in a "literal" reading of the Bible, or in a 7 day creation (we all know God goofed off for six days and then pulled an all nighter! :) ) Nor do I ask that my faith be taught as science or reality.
So you're representative of the majority of Christians?
Good.

And I'd add that you seem to know that faith isn't about
evidence; also good.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
e***@hotmail.com
2016-04-12 20:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:21:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled.
The amount of faith a person has in the possibility that there's no god
See there is the I pass. Faith requires belief with out evidence. A atheist
has no faith. Their view is dependent only,on evidence. As long as you keep
injecting the nonsense of faith into this discussion, you will continue to
be though of as a theist troll, by most people.
This mindless injection of faith into the discuss is simple you even
to,refuse to consider a rational and logical argument.
I beleive in God. I believe in Jesus. I do not require people to believe what I believe. Nor do I require physical evidence to bolster my faith.
Furthermore, I do NOT believe in a "literal" reading of the Bible, or in a 7 day creation (we all know God goofed off for six days and then pulled an all nighter! :) ) Nor do I ask that my faith be taught as science or reality.
So you're representative of the majority of Christians?
Good.
And I'd add that you seem to know that faith isn't about
evidence; also good.
You might consider that while you appear to be lumping all "believers" in the same group.
Bob Casanova
2016-04-13 17:25:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:50:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Casanova
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:21:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled.
The amount of faith a person has in the possibility that there's no god
See there is the I pass. Faith requires belief with out evidence. A atheist
has no faith. Their view is dependent only,on evidence. As long as you keep
injecting the nonsense of faith into this discussion, you will continue to
be though of as a theist troll, by most people.
This mindless injection of faith into the discuss is simple you even
to,refuse to consider a rational and logical argument.
I beleive in God. I believe in Jesus. I do not require people to believe what I believe. Nor do I require physical evidence to bolster my faith.
Furthermore, I do NOT believe in a "literal" reading of the Bible, or in a 7 day creation (we all know God goofed off for six days and then pulled an all nighter! :) ) Nor do I ask that my faith be taught as science or reality.
So you're representative of the majority of Christians?
Good.
And I'd add that you seem to know that faith isn't about
evidence; also good.
You might consider that while you appear to be lumping all "believers" in the same group.
Any time I've used the term it was either in a specific
context or it obviously applied to all religious believers,
regardless of their specific beliefs. Belief in a deity or
deities, for example, is characteristic of believers, and is
not, IMHO, pejorative.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
m***@.
2016-04-14 17:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
No, the question is how do you quantify it?
Sylvia.
Everything In a theist's mind is colored by dogmatic faith and beliefs.
Since the strength of beliefs can be scaled, they feel that a person's lack
of belief can also be scaled.
The amount of faith a person has in the possibility that there's no god
See there is the I pass. Faith requires belief with out evidence.
That's a blatant lie.
_________________________________________________________
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/faith
Learner's definition of FAITH
1 [noncount] : strong belief or trust in someone or something

http://is.gd/dZ9hQZ
noun
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/faith
Definition of faith in English:noun
1Complete trust or confidence in someone or something:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/faith
faith noun (TRUST)
› [U] a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone:

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/faith
1[uncountable] strong belief in or trust of someone or something

http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/faith
faith W2
1trust/confidence in somebody/something
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Faith is faith regardless of how a person develops it.
Post by Bob Officer
A atheist has no faith.
You have faith in more than one thing, but you're ashamed to have faith in
anything. You're ashamed of your faith in everything you have faith in
apparently.
Post by Bob Officer
Their view is dependent only,on evidence. As long as you keep
injecting the nonsense of faith into this discussion, you will continue to
be though of as a theist troll, by most people.
This mindless injection of faith into the discuss is simple you even
to,refuse to consider a rational and logical argument.
Try to present some.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
associated with this planet IS what determines how strong an atheist the person
is or is not. It's something people who clearly appear to be strong atheists,
like yourself, show us they're horribly ashamed of.
To actually have no belief requires a person to be able to consider the
possibility that there is a god associated with this planet, or anything
anywhere, which is something none of you atheists have ever provided any
evidence that any of you are capable of doing.
Post by Bob Officer
They fail to understand in the absence of
evidence, a claim can be dismissed. The concept of any deity existing isn't
supported by evidence.
In order for you claim to even be considered you need to explain WHAT sort
of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you
think it should be available to us, and WHEN you think it should be or should
have been made available. Since you can't even attempt to address any of those
challenges you make it obvious you don't have any clue at all what you think
you're trying to talk about, and can't even pretend that you do.
Bob Officer
2016-04-04 16:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears. One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.

The bible isn't evidence, and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.

I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take to support the ridiculous
claims and statement made by theist of any sort... It would take the same
amount of evidence to support the claim of someone having a purple
unicorn...
--
Why are people so susceptible to the nonsense spouted by others claiming to
be the word of gods? Are their deities so weak they can not nor will not
speak for themselves? And lastly why do gods and aliens alway pick the
dumbest or most mentally warped of humanity to be their chosen
spokesperson?
m***@.
2016-04-09 14:19:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:52:26 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Bob Officer
2016-04-10 03:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist? I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men. So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
Olrik
2016-04-10 04:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist?
They do! A "Saint" is just a level of membership in a club.

I do have a club, and to be granted "Exalted Grand Puppa" status, you
have to find a way to be burned at the stake in my name : "Bacon".

Do that and I'll throw in a free, one-year subscription to Netflix!
Post by Bob Officer
I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men. So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Bob Officer
2016-04-10 18:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist?
They do! A "Saint" is just a level of membership in a club.
I do have a club, and to be granted "Exalted Grand Puppa" status, you
have to find a way to be burned at the stake in my name : "Bacon".
Do that and I'll throw in a free, one-year subscription to Netflix!
The person I see is mur is a zealot or fanatic. He see the world only
colored by is extreme belief system. To him being an atheist with no belief
in gods or a need to have gods, is so foreign to him he can't mentally put
together a discussion without using the words faith or belief.

Mur is cut out of the same cloth as duke. Unable to think for himself and
when simple errors are pointed out they just can't understand the words and
retreat into the dissonance of their indoctrinated and brainwashed minds.
Post by Olrik
Post by Bob Officer
I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men. So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
m***@.
2016-04-14 17:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
The person I see is mur is a zealot or fanatic. He see the world only
colored by is extreme belief system. To him being an atheist with no belief
in gods or a need to have gods, is so foreign to him
I'm a weak agnostic which is beyond your mental ability to comprehend, as
you have just made clear.
Post by Bob Officer
he can't mentally put
together a discussion without using the words faith or belief.
The fact that you're ashamed of everything you believe and have faith in is
fun and amusing to point out.
Post by Bob Officer
Mur is cut out of the same cloth as duke. Unable to think for himself and
when simple errors are pointed out
Try pointing some out now.
e***@hotmail.com
2016-04-12 17:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist?
They do! A "Saint" is just a level of membership in a club.
Are you aware of what it takes to be qualified to be named a "Saint" by the Church? It's hardly a "club."

http://coraevans.com/blog/article/the-canonization-process?gclid=CjwKEAjwubK4BRC1xczKrZyj3mkSJAC6ntgrFO4OWsEnNgmjlESYa_HrJsT8MBTek9OlP7sW5JJjnRoCAB3w_wcB
m***@.
2016-04-14 17:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Try to back up that claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Try to explain how the accepted ones are not evidence. The ones not accepted
by you would be a good start for you.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Yes. From that point a person would have to then consider what is good
evidence and what is not, but that's a basic starting line you can't get as
"far" as.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist? I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men.
"You have evidence saints is exist?"
Post by Bob Officer
So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Present your evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All saints are
evidence. Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are
evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death
experiences people have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of
evolution is evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Bob Officer
2016-04-15 05:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Try to back up that claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Try to explain how the accepted ones are not evidence. The ones not accepted
by you would be a good start for you.
That would be all of them?
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Yes. From that point a person would have to then consider what is good
evidence and what is not, but that's a basic starting line you can't get as
"far" as.
If all folklore is the same, then all are dismissed. Unless you decided
Odin is real.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist? I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men.
"You have evidence saints is exist?"
No there is no real,evidence is saints.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Present your evidence.
The Genocide of Native Americans would be one. Actually the genocide
practiced under the direction of Junípero Serra would be one of the best
documented. He actually was so proud of his inhumanity, he wrote down his
various act. He was one filth pig. As bad with his bigotry as any Nazi
concentration camp commandant.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
Life itself is evidenced. All accepted miracles are evidence. All saints are
evidence. Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are
evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death
experiences people have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of
evolution is evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?

The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?

As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.

Last there are no accepted miracles. Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
m***@.
2016-05-01 02:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Try to back up that claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Try to explain how the accepted ones are not evidence. The ones not accepted
by you would be a good start for you.
That would be all of them?
No attempt to explain.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Yes. From that point a person would have to then consider what is good
evidence and what is not, but that's a basic starting line you can't get as
"far" as.
If all folklore is the same, then all are dismissed.
You don't know if it's all the same or not.
Post by Bob Officer
Unless you decided
Odin is real.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist? I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men.
"You have evidence saints is exist?"
No there is no real,evidence is saints.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Present your evidence.
The
You can't present evidence of something you claim doesn't exist at all.
Post by Bob Officer
Genocide of Native Americans would be one. Actually the genocide
practiced under the direction of Junípero Serra would be one of the best
documented. He actually was so proud of his inhumanity, he wrote down his
various act. He was one filth pig. As bad with his bigotry as any Nazi
concentration camp commandant.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
Life itself is evidenced. All accepted miracles are evidence. All saints are
evidence. Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are
evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death
experiences people have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of
evolution is evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
Bob Officer
2016-05-01 17:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Try to back up that claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Try to explain how the accepted ones are not evidence. The ones not accepted
by you would be a good start for you.
That would be all of them?
No attempt to explain.
What part of all don't you understand? All means inclusive, each and
everyone of them.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Yes. From that point a person would have to then consider what is good
evidence and what is not, but that's a basic starting line you can't get as
"far" as.
If all folklore is the same, then all are dismissed.
You don't know if it's all the same or not.
Folklore tales of unsupported explanation.
Because the bible is unsupported by any evidence,many the more we look the
less chances there will be evidence found.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Unless you decided
Odin is real.
No counter point?
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist? I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men.
"You have evidence saints is exist?"
No there is no real evidence of saints.
No counter-point
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Present your evidence.
The
You can't present evidence of something you claim doesn't exist at all.
And you don't have any evidence outside the bible and its derivative works.
Since the bible is unsupported by any outside evidence, it is highly
suspect and given little or no weight.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Genocide of Native Americans would be one. Actually the genocide
practiced under the direction of Junípero Serra would be one of the best
documented. He actually was so proud of his inhumanity, he wrote down his
various act. He was one filth pig. As bad with his bigotry as any Nazi
concentration camp commandant.
No counter point.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
Life itself is evidenced. All accepted miracles are evidence. All saints are
evidence. Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are
evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death
experiences people have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of
evolution is evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Maybe you need to let your ability to reason grow up,without the crippling
restrains of theism.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Sorry an independent audit of AA shows it is highly unsuccessful. That's
the data from an independent auditor.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Then why involve the doctors, ER and hospital staff? Stay home and pray?
When that happens the religious bigots will blames the parents or
communities lack of faith. If faith healing really worked we would not have
to have hospitals and doctors. Medicine would have never been developed.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
God residing. Wow that's a different take from the cult of the sky pixie
which claims God is everywhere. So what is the address of his residence
here on this planet?
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
I read accounts of this so called miracles. The are poorly contrived events
with natural causes or they are outright delusions..
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
You have what appears to be a classic psychological projection?
--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.
m***@.
2016-05-13 00:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by m***@.
Post by Dale
Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like that?
Blind Faith?
Do only theists utilize blind faith?
Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious belief.
How do you quantify faith dependency?
Believing it to be true without there being any evidence at all to support
it, or any evidence that could support it. As yet I've never encountered a
strong atheist--or anyone else for that matter--who could even imagine evidence
that could support it.
How poor your reasoning ability appears.
Yet what I pointed out is 100% correct and there's nothing you can do to
change the fact.
Post by Bob Officer
One needs evidence to support a
claim or belief. The problem without evidence one would default to the
negative.
The bible isn't evidence,
Yes it is. Life itself is evidence.
Except that life is not evidence.
Try to back up that claim.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
What miracles?
Try to explain how the accepted ones are not evidence. The ones not accepted
by you would be a good start for you.
That would be all of them?
No attempt to explain.
What part of all don't you understand?
What part of explain don't you understand?
Post by Bob Officer
All mea
What part of explain don't you understand?
...
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All
miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
so then do you accept the evidence that all other folklore is evidence
also?
Yes. From that point a person would have to then consider what is good
evidence and what is not, but that's a basic starting line you can't get as
"far" as.
If all folklore is the same, then all are dismissed.
You don't know if it's all the same or not.
Folklore tales of unsupported explanation.
Because the bible is unsupported by any evidence,
What if you're wrong and there is evidence of something in the Bible? Then
do you think it's safe for people to believe you could be wrong about everything
else?
Post by Bob Officer
many the more we look the
less chances there will be evidence found.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Unless you decided
Odin is real.
No counter point?
2. If there is a creator associated with this planet, all
who refer to him refer to the same being regardless of what
they call him or what they think about him.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
You have evidence saints is exist? I know several of those so called saints
were also evil and despicable men.
"You have evidence saints is exist?"
No there is no real evidence of saints.
No counter-point
"I know several of those"
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
So evil that by today's standards they
would be considered War Criminal akin to the Nazi.
Present your evidence.
The
You can't present evidence of something you claim doesn't exist at all.
And you don't have any evidence outside the bible
Of what?
Post by Bob Officer
and its derivative works.
Since the bible is unsupported by any outside evidence,
What if you're wrong and there is evidence of something in the Bible? Then
do you think it's safe for people to believe you could be wrong about everything
else?
Post by Bob Officer
it is highly
suspect and given little or no weight.
You're certainly in no better position, but if you'd like us to pretend you
are then try to explain how you'd like people to think you are.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Genocide of Native Americans would be one. Actually the genocide
practiced under the direction of Junípero Serra would be one of the best
documented. He actually was so proud of his inhumanity, he wrote down his
various act. He was one filth pig. As bad with his bigotry as any Nazi
concentration camp commandant.
No counter point.
To what?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Atheists
lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that
seem to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and
recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The
success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Post by Bob Officer
and has no more validity than any other cultures
folklore and fables.
There is little or no evidence found by archeology to support the claims
made in the bible, and there is little or non-circular references to
historically support the bible.
I can imagine what sort of evidence it would take
I challenge you to try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there
should be, WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
That challenge will defeat you completely and entirely. You were defeated
the moment I posted the challenge to you. Try proving me wrong.
Any evidence other than your book of folklore and fairy tales.
Life itself is evidenced. All accepted miracles are evidence. All saints are
evidence. Atheists lying about it are evidence. All medical miracles are
evidence. All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence. Death
experiences people have and recover from are evidence. The evidence we have of
evolution is evidence. The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Maybe you need to let your ability to reason grow up,
I'm challenging you to help, but you're too limitted in your ability to get
anywhere at all.
Post by Bob Officer
without the crippling
restrains of theism.
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Sorry an independent audit of AA shows it is highly unsuccessful. That's
the data from an independent auditor.
Why should we put faith in your belief that such programs have never helped
anyone, or that if they have it has never involved God or help from any
associated beings?
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Then why involve the doctors, ER and hospital staff?
Would you like people to believe your really can't even figure that out for
yourself?
Post by Bob Officer
Stay home and pray?
When that happens the religious bigots will blames the parents or
communities lack of faith. If faith healing really worked we would not have
to have hospitals and doctors. Medicine would have never been developed.
Again you are the moron, since it's obvious that if there is a God
associated with this planet he encourages learning.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
God residing. Wow that's a different take
It's beyond your mental ability. Explain why anyone else should try to
restrictict themeselves to your pathetic level. TRY!!!
Post by Bob Officer
from the cult of the sky pixie
which claims God is everywhere. So what is the address of his residence
here on this planet?
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
I read accounts of this so called miracles. The are poorly contrived events
with natural causes or they are outright delusions..
Another very real possibility is certainly that your claim is an outright
delusion.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by m***@.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
You have what appears to be a classic psychological projection?
You have consistently shown me to be correct. I challenge you to try showing
that I might be incorrect. TRY!!!!
Wm. Esque
2016-05-02 04:54:35 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology. Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.

Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
m***@.
2016-05-13 00:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist
He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing that
shows how unrealistic a person's "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any place
not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to ridicule
that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they feel
that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.
Post by Wm. Esque
and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Post by Wm. Esque
Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.
Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Wm. Esque
2016-05-14 21:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist
He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing that
shows how unrealistic a person's "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any place
not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to ridicule
that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they feel
that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.
Right, just above the clouds. But not too high since the air would be
too rarefied to breath.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Perhaps, God wants to see how people act in his absence. IOW this life
is could be a trial run.
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.
Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Don't know what this means.
m***@.
2016-05-20 01:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist
He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing that
shows how unrealistic a person's "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any place
not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to ridicule
that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they feel
that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.
Right, just above the clouds.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is.
Post by Wm. Esque
But not too high since the air would be
too rarefied to breath.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is. Thinking beyond your
apparent ability considers that God would be able to exist beyond not only the
surface of this planet, but also its atmosphere, gravitational attraction, and
even the star we orbit.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Perhaps, God wants to see how people act in his absence. IOW this life
is could be a trial run.
Could be. If he provided us with proof of his existence things would be
completely different.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.
Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Don't know what this means.
It's evidence that there was some sort of intelligent influence involved
with how things became as they are.
Wm. Esque
2016-05-20 03:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist
He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing that
shows how unrealistic a person's "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any place
not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to ridicule
that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they feel
that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.
Right, just above the clouds.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is.
Post by Wm. Esque
But not too high since the air would be
too rarefied to breath.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is. Thinking beyond your
apparent ability considers that God would be able to exist beyond not only the
surface of this planet, but also its atmosphere, gravitational attraction, and
even the star we orbit.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Perhaps, God wants to see how people act in his absence. IOW this life
is could be a trial run.
Could be. If he provided us with proof of his existence things would be
completely different.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.
Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Don't know what this means.
It's evidence that there was some sort of intelligent influence involved
with how things became as they are.
I was making fun of idiots who think God dwells in the sky and is
somehow confined to our world.
m***@.
2016-05-22 03:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist
He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing that
shows how unrealistic a person's "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any place
not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to ridicule
that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they feel
that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.
Right, just above the clouds.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is.
Post by Wm. Esque
But not too high since the air would be
too rarefied to breath.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is. Thinking beyond your
apparent ability considers that God would be able to exist beyond not only the
surface of this planet, but also its atmosphere, gravitational attraction, and
even the star we orbit.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Perhaps, God wants to see how people act in his absence. IOW this life
is could be a trial run.
Could be. If he provided us with proof of his existence things would be
completely different.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.
Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Don't know what this means.
It's evidence that there was some sort of intelligent influence involved
with how things became as they are.
I was making fun of idiots who think God dwells in the sky and is
somehow confined to our world.
Try to explain how you would like anyone to think that could possibly be the
case.
Wm. Esque
2016-05-22 19:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist
He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing that
shows how unrealistic a person's "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any place
not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to ridicule
that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they feel
that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.
Right, just above the clouds.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is.
Post by Wm. Esque
But not too high since the air would be
too rarefied to breath.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is. Thinking beyond your
apparent ability considers that God would be able to exist beyond not only the
surface of this planet, but also its atmosphere, gravitational attraction, and
even the star we orbit.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Perhaps, God wants to see how people act in his absence. IOW this life
is could be a trial run.
Could be. If he provided us with proof of his existence things would be
completely different.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.
Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Don't know what this means.
It's evidence that there was some sort of intelligent influence involved
with how things became as they are.
I was making fun of idiots who think God dwells in the sky and is
somehow confined to our world.
Try to explain how you would like anyone to think that could possibly be the
case.
I have no idea! That's for those who believe this way.
m***@.
2016-05-25 18:34:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
[snip]
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by Bob Officer
The
[snip]
Post by Bob Officer
So I guess those scientist which have created self replicating proteins are
really just gods?
Your limitted ability to think about things might restict you to something
so lame. A less infantile way of thinking about it would be that they may have
made one of the first baby steps toward moving in the direction of developing
the technology for some humans to eventually become gods, or at least god like.
Post by Bob Officer
The success of NA and AA programs are false claims, or don't you follow how
those false statistical claims were made?
Your way of thinking about restricts you from considering it for the
evidence it is. If you want to say what you want people to think your escape is
then just do it.
Post by Bob Officer
As far as medical miracles, those are the results of hard working doctors,
Of course any child could cling to that being the only possibility with all
their faith, but I don't even make the attempt like you do, and have no reason
to at all.
Post by Bob Officer
not an imaginary sky pixies intercession.
The fact that you can't comprehend why God would not reside on this planet
if he exists clearly reveals the horribly low level you're mentally capable of
"thinking" about the possibility of his existence. It's like on a moron level,
or at "best" a severely retarded level.
Post by Bob Officer
Last there are no accepted miracles.
Your blatant lies can't make people stop accepting them.
Post by Bob Officer
Only folkish and stupid people that
out of their ignorance swallow bullshit.
You have shown yourself to be on a severely retarded level at "best"
regarding this topic. YOU have shown it clearly, and without question.
It's impossible to respond to everything that people claim, but in
the final analysis the issue always comes down to does God exist
He tried to ridicule the idea that God would be in the "sky", and doing that
shows how unrealistic a person's "thinking" is regarding this topic. Any place
not on Earth is in the "sky" from our perspective, so by attempting to ridicule
that God would be in the "sky" these people give the clear impression they feel
that God would be resticted to this planet if he does exist.
Right, just above the clouds.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is.
Post by Wm. Esque
But not too high since the air would be
too rarefied to breath.
To YOU, showing how unrealistic your thinking is. Thinking beyond your
apparent ability considers that God would be able to exist beyond not only the
surface of this planet, but also its atmosphere, gravitational attraction, and
even the star we orbit.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
and
where is the proof? But there can be no proof in either science or
theology.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
Perhaps, God wants to see how people act in his absence. IOW this life
is could be a trial run.
Could be. If he provided us with proof of his existence things would be
completely different.
Post by Wm. Esque
Post by m***@.
Post by Wm. Esque
Proof belongs in math, not science and not theology. But is
there any kind of evidence for God and creation independent of the
Bible? There is no direct empirical evidence, however there is
scientific evidence which can certainly be seen as _indirect_ evidence
for creation of the universe and life on at least one planet we know of.
This is totally independent of anything in the Bible or any religious
material.
Indirect evidence is not unknown in scientific circles. Indeed
just about everything known about the atom is through indirect
evidence.
We don't see electrons, however there is indirect evidence they exist.
Scientist had indirect evidence for the existence of a particular
fundamental particle since the 1960 of called Higgs Boson (the god
particle). It was discovered to be real in 2912 at Cern. There is
only indirect evidence of the matter in the earth's core. Tracks
in earth's strata is indirect evidence that some animal pass by
a certain location in the past. So, in the same sense, there is
indirect evidence for creation of the universe and life and thus a
Creator. Such indirect evidence can be seen in astronomy, and
astrophysicist, the preponderance of stasis in the fossil record and by
the existence of homeobox genes which are ubiquitous through out the
animal kingdom..
That's another basic starting line atheists can't get as "far" as.
Don't know what this means.
It's evidence that there was some sort of intelligent influence involved
with how things became as they are.
I was making fun of idiots who think God dwells in the sky and is
somehow confined to our world.
Try to explain how you would like anyone to think that could possibly be the
case.
I have no idea!
Then you've made it clear you weren't "making fun of" anyone and weren't
even trying to. You "don't know" what was pointed out for you, and are unable to
figure it out.

Loading...