Discussion:
Need Explanation
(too old to reply)
Checkmate, DoW #1
2015-10-03 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers to convert or
be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live where scary moslems live, so
as long as it's others at risk instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute,
boutique, ethnic belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe... we
just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of a god
cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity of life
and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce itself, I
think that there must be a Creator. When I ask this Creator what it's
all about... what he wants from us and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.

When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it came
from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How? One day
it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of a stretch
than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a Universe. Could
there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated to reveal himself to
us or tell us why we're here? No. If there is a Creator, we may be
nothing more than lab rats to him.

And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the answer,
it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator decides to break
his silence. To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity? That is
a god I would hope does not exist.

And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that mind
was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it has given
me, even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not even
threats of eternal damnation can change.
--
Checkmate, AUK DoW #1
Official AUK Award Giver-Outer
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
Jeanne Douglas
2015-10-03 06:50:58 UTC
Permalink
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
Oh, really, then why all the slaughtered dead all over the American
continents among Natives who refused to convert?
--
JD

I've officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info
%
2015-10-03 07:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
In article
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a
reason to accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the
rule ~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be
identifying your axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems
according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality,
objectivity, or fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out
refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
Oh, really, then why all the slaughtered dead all over the American
continents among Natives who refused to convert?
there are none so blind
Alex W.
2015-10-03 07:40:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
Oh, really, then why all the slaughtered dead all over the American
continents among Natives who refused to convert?
I'd classify that as a convenient excuse for an out and out land grab.
The Spaniards resorted to the old trick of claiming that "god wants us
to do this" in order to legitimise their greed, just as Charlemagne did
with the Saxons and indeed the JEws did in Palestine (if one gives
credence to the bible).
m***@.
2015-10-20 16:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
Oh, really, then why all the slaughtered dead all over the American
continents among Natives who refused to convert?
I'd classify that as a convenient excuse for an out and out land grab.
It seems so obvious that even a strong atheist should be able to comprehend.
But....
Post by Alex W.
The Spaniards resorted to the old trick of claiming that "god wants us
to do this" in order to legitimise their greed, just as Charlemagne did
with the Saxons and indeed the JEws did in Palestine (if one gives
credence to the bible).
m***@.
2015-10-20 16:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
Oh, really, then why all the slaughtered dead all over the American
continents among Natives who refused to convert?
Why can't you consider the possibility that human greed and self interest
had a lot to do with it?
Checkmate, DoW #1
2015-10-20 23:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
Oh, really, then why all the slaughtered dead all over the American
continents among Natives who refused to convert?
Why can't you consider the possibility that human greed and self interest
had a lot to do with it?
Sure, and what better way to control the ignorant, that to fuck with
their confusion over how they came into being?

<please contribute generously when the plate passes... it'll please God>
--
Checkmate, AUK DoW #1
Official AUK Award Giver-Outer
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
m***@.
2015-10-26 17:27:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:05:33 -0700, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
<***@The.Edge> wrote:
.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
Post by m***@.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of
that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further
that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
Oh, really, then why all the slaughtered dead all over the American
continents among Natives who refused to convert?
Why can't you consider the possibility that human greed and self interest
had a lot to do with it?
Sure, and what better way to control the ignorant, that to fuck with
their confusion over how they came into being?
<please contribute generously when the plate passes... it'll please God>
There's a practical side of that. If God does exist and makes eternal life
possible for us he's being very generous about it even without providing us with
proof of his existence. The churches need money to exist just like everything
else. They encourage the belief which provides the opportunity of life beyond
this if there is such. It all works together...
m***@.
2015-10-26 17:27:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 22:52:15 -0700, "Checkmate, DoW #1" <***@The.Edge>
wrote:
.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers to convert or
be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live where scary moslems live, so
as long as it's others at risk instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute,
boutique, ethnic belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe... we
just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of a god
cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity of life
and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce itself, I
think that there must be a Creator.
In great contrast to the strong atheists who can't even consider the
possiblity in any realistic ways. Even so, they still believe their mental
inabilities make the somehow superior. Absurd thinking like that make the
atheists themselves evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan (or
whatever) having influence on weak human minds.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
When I ask this Creator what it's
all about... what he wants from us and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it came
from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How? One day
it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of a stretch
than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a Universe. Could
there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated to reveal himself to
us or tell us why we're here?
If he were to give us all proof of his existence then we would be more like
slaves to him, even those who are strong atheists. If he wants us to have the
freedom of thought we do have--if he wants things to be AS THEY ARE--then he
can't give us proof of his existence. That's one of the basic starting lines
atheists can't get as "far" as. They can't get as "far" as the fact that if God
wants things to be as they are, they might very well be as they are. Another way
that their mental restrictions make them evidence....
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
No. If there is a Creator, we may be
nothing more than lab rats to him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the answer,
it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator decides to break
his silence.
True. It's impossible to know God doesn't exist if in fact he does not. The
best a person could do if he doesn't exist is to guess that he does not, and
then put all of their faith in their particular guess happening to be the
correct possibility. ALL those who say God doesn't exist have nothing but their
own faith, which the vast majority of them are amusingly very much ashamed of.
Strong atheism is more faith based than any other religious belief.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity? That is
a god I would hope does not exist.
And I as well. Hopefully it's an exageration. I believe there are a number
of exagerations like omnipotence and omniscience associated with beliefs about
God. Yet again strong atheists can't get as "far" as that basic starting line
either.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that mind
was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it has given
me,
But what a great opportunity to have the freedom to consider such things!
Strong atheists can't. They are too mentally restricted to get as "far" as the
basic starting lines. They may be like animals in that regard, or they may be
below animals IF any animals are able to consider such things. Basic aspects and
questions people like you and I consider and think about, and find frustrating,
strong atheists can't think about realistically at all. So as frustrating as it
is imo we're still in a better position, and we undoubtedly have MUCH more
freedom of thought, than strong atheists.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not even
threats of eternal damnation can change.
Agreed. The only way a person can know God exists if he does, is if he lets
them know it somehow. And usually after that happens if it truly ever does,
those people seem to become slaves dedicating their lives to God after that, and
most other people consider them to be some kind of kook. But we should also keep
in mind there's no way anyone could ever learn God doesn't exist, even though
some people have told me they did learn it and have amusingly referred to their
faith in the possibility as "knowledge". Those who demand proof (which they very
dishonestly often refer to as "evidence") of God's existence act like having no
proof means God does not exist, while at the same time being unable to
appreciate the fact that there's no proof or evidence that God does not exist.
Only their own faith, which they're ashamed of and want to deny.
Smiler
2015-10-26 18:18:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:27:17 -0400, mur wrote:

<snip bullshit excuses for why there is no evidence for your supposed god
character >

Oh, look! Nothing left.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
m***@.
2015-11-01 20:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers to convert or
be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live where scary moslems live, so
as long as it's others at risk instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute,
boutique, ethnic belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe... we
just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of a god
cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity of life
and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce itself, I
think that there must be a Creator.
In great contrast to the strong atheists who can't even consider the
possiblity in any realistic ways. Even so, they still believe their mental
inabilities make the somehow superior. Absurd thinking like that make the
atheists themselves evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan (or
whatever) having influence on weak human minds.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
When I ask this Creator what it's
all about... what he wants from us and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it came
from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How? One day
it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of a stretch
than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a Universe. Could
there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated to reveal himself to
us or tell us why we're here?
If he were to give us all proof of his existence then we would be more like
slaves to him, even those who are strong atheists. If he wants us to have the
freedom of thought we do have--if he wants things to be AS THEY ARE--then he
can't give us proof of his existence. That's one of the basic starting lines
atheists can't get as "far" as. They can't get as "far" as the fact that if God
wants things to be as they are, they might very well be as they are. Another way
that their mental restrictions make them evidence....
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
No. If there is a Creator, we may be
nothing more than lab rats to him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the answer,
it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator decides to break
his silence.
True. It's impossible to know God doesn't exist if in fact he does not. The
best a person could do if he doesn't exist is to guess that he does not, and
then put all of their faith in their particular guess happening to be the
correct possibility. ALL those who say God doesn't exist have nothing but their
own faith, which the vast majority of them are amusingly very much ashamed of.
Strong atheism is more faith based than any other religious belief.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity? That is
a god I would hope does not exist.
And I as well. Hopefully it's an exageration. I believe there are a number
of exagerations like omnipotence and omniscience associated with beliefs about
God. Yet again strong atheists can't get as "far" as that basic starting line
either.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that mind
was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it has given
me,
But what a great opportunity to have the freedom to consider such things!
Strong atheists can't. They are too mentally restricted to get as "far" as the
basic starting lines. They may be like animals in that regard, or they may be
below animals IF any animals are able to consider such things. Basic aspects and
questions people like you and I consider and think about, and find frustrating,
strong atheists can't think about realistically at all. So as frustrating as it
is imo we're still in a better position, and we undoubtedly have MUCH more
freedom of thought, than strong atheists.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not even
threats of eternal damnation can change.
Agreed. The only way a person can know God exists if he does, is if he lets
them know it somehow. And usually after that happens if it truly ever does,
those people seem to become slaves dedicating their lives to God after that, and
most other people consider them to be some kind of kook. But we should also keep
in mind there's no way anyone could ever learn God doesn't exist, even though
some people have told me they did learn it and have amusingly referred to their
faith in the possibility as "knowledge". Those who demand proof (which they very
dishonestly often refer to as "evidence") of God's existence act like having no
proof means God does not exist, while at the same time being unable to
appreciate the fact that there's no proof or evidence that God does not exist.
Only their own faith, which they're ashamed of and want to deny.
Oh, look!
Let's see. Let's see you admit your faith, and then try defending it.
Smiler
2015-11-01 23:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Oh, look!
Let's see. Let's see you admit your faith, and then try defending it.
What faith would that be, liar?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
m***@.
2015-11-05 17:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers to convert or
be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live where scary moslems live, so
as long as it's others at risk instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute,
boutique, ethnic belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe... we
just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of a god
cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity of life
and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce itself, I
think that there must be a Creator.
In great contrast to the strong atheists who can't even consider the
possiblity in any realistic ways. Even so, they still believe their mental
inabilities make the somehow superior. Absurd thinking like that make the
atheists themselves evidence of God's existence by being evidence of Satan (or
whatever) having influence on weak human minds.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
When I ask this Creator what it's
all about... what he wants from us and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it came
from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How? One day
it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of a stretch
than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a Universe. Could
there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated to reveal himself to
us or tell us why we're here?
If he were to give us all proof of his existence then we would be more like
slaves to him, even those who are strong atheists. If he wants us to have the
freedom of thought we do have--if he wants things to be AS THEY ARE--then he
can't give us proof of his existence. That's one of the basic starting lines
atheists can't get as "far" as. They can't get as "far" as the fact that if God
wants things to be as they are, they might very well be as they are. Another way
that their mental restrictions make them evidence....
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
No. If there is a Creator, we may be
nothing more than lab rats to him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the answer,
it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator decides to break
his silence.
True. It's impossible to know God doesn't exist if in fact he does not. The
best a person could do if he doesn't exist is to guess that he does not, and
then put all of their faith in their particular guess happening to be the
correct possibility. ALL those who say God doesn't exist have nothing but their
own faith, which the vast majority of them are amusingly very much ashamed of.
Strong atheism is more faith based than any other religious belief.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity? That is
a god I would hope does not exist.
And I as well. Hopefully it's an exageration. I believe there are a number
of exagerations like omnipotence and omniscience associated with beliefs about
God. Yet again strong atheists can't get as "far" as that basic starting line
either.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that mind
was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it has given
me,
But what a great opportunity to have the freedom to consider such things!
Strong atheists can't. They are too mentally restricted to get as "far" as the
basic starting lines. They may be like animals in that regard, or they may be
below animals IF any animals are able to consider such things. Basic aspects and
questions people like you and I consider and think about, and find frustrating,
strong atheists can't think about realistically at all. So as frustrating as it
is imo we're still in a better position, and we undoubtedly have MUCH more
freedom of thought, than strong atheists.
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not even
threats of eternal damnation can change.
Agreed. The only way a person can know God exists if he does, is if he lets
them know it somehow. And usually after that happens if it truly ever does,
those people seem to become slaves dedicating their lives to God after that, and
most other people consider them to be some kind of kook. But we should also keep
in mind there's no way anyone could ever learn God doesn't exist, even though
some people have told me they did learn it and have amusingly referred to their
faith in the possibility as "knowledge". Those who demand proof (which they very
dishonestly often refer to as "evidence") of God's existence act like having no
proof means God does not exist, while at the same time being unable to
appreciate the fact that there's no proof or evidence that God does not exist.
Only their own faith, which they're ashamed of and want to deny.
Oh, look!
Let's see. Let's see you admit your faith, and then try defending it.
What faith would that be, liar?
Let's start with something that should be easy even for you. You have faith
that your belief you won't float off the surface of the planet when you go
outside is correct. Try to admit it and then defend it. Or try to deny it and
get people to believe you're honestly so stupid you don't have faith that your
belief is correct. Remember though that the point of this is to demonstrate the
correctness of the observation: "their own faith, which they're ashamed of and
want to deny."
Smiler
2015-11-05 20:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 22:52:15 -0700, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
.
In article
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing
exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to
give a reason to accept that your god exists and that means
evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule ~P(~x) then P(x)
substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you
provide evidence that this god thing exists, anything you say
about it is pure fantasy', then according to classic logic you are
also saying 'until I provide evidence of that this god does not
exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is
merely your belief that data has only one possible interpretation
as evidence. And further that the interpretation is only possible
when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be
identifying your axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems
according to some stated logic, usually classic logic with the
excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality,
objectivity, or fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out
refusal to accept testimony of Roman historians and populations of
different cultures just because you don't like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the
title of your bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to
convert nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their
god for the sins of others. So your demands to have christianity
proven true is only an obligation on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers
to convert or be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live
where scary moslems live, so as long as it's others at risk
instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute, boutique, ethnic
belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe...
we just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of
a god cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity
of life and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce
itself, I think that there must be a Creator.
In great contrast to the strong atheists who can't even consider the
possiblity in any realistic ways. Even so, they still believe their
mental inabilities make the somehow superior. Absurd thinking like
that make the atheists themselves evidence of God's existence by
being evidence of Satan (or whatever) having influence on weak human
minds.
When I ask this Creator what it's all about... what he wants from us
and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it
came from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How?
One day it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of
a stretch than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a
Universe. Could there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated
to reveal himself to us or tell us why we're here?
If he were to give us all proof of his existence then we would be more like
slaves to him, even those who are strong atheists. If he wants us to
have the freedom of thought we do have--if he wants things to be AS
THEY ARE--then he can't give us proof of his existence. That's one of
the basic starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as. They can't
get as "far" as the fact that if God wants things to be as they are,
they might very well be as they are. Another way that their mental
restrictions make them evidence....
No. If there is a Creator, we may be nothing more than lab rats to
him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the
answer, it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator
decides to break his silence.
True. It's impossible to know God doesn't exist if in fact he does not. The
best a person could do if he doesn't exist is to guess that he does
not, and then put all of their faith in their particular guess
happening to be the correct possibility. ALL those who say God
doesn't exist have nothing but their own faith, which the vast
majority of them are amusingly very much ashamed of. Strong atheism
is more faith based than any other religious belief.
To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity?
That is a god I would hope does not exist.
And I as well. Hopefully it's an exageration. I believe there are a number
of exagerations like omnipotence and omniscience associated with
beliefs about God. Yet again strong atheists can't get as "far" as
that basic starting line either.
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that
mind was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it
has given me,
But what a great opportunity to have the freedom to consider such things!
Strong atheists can't. They are too mentally restricted to get as
"far" as the basic starting lines. They may be like animals in that
regard, or they may be below animals IF any animals are able to
consider such things. Basic aspects and questions people like you and
I consider and think about, and find frustrating, strong atheists
can't think about realistically at all. So as frustrating as it is
imo we're still in a better position, and we undoubtedly have MUCH
more freedom of thought, than strong atheists.
even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not
even threats of eternal damnation can change.
Agreed. The only way a person can know God exists if he does, is if he lets
them know it somehow. And usually after that happens if it truly ever
does, those people seem to become slaves dedicating their lives to
God after that, and most other people consider them to be some kind
of kook. But we should also keep in mind there's no way anyone could
ever learn God doesn't exist, even though some people have told me
they did learn it and have amusingly referred to their faith in the
possibility as "knowledge". Those who demand proof (which they very
dishonestly often refer to as "evidence") of God's existence act like
having no proof means God does not exist, while at the same time
being unable to appreciate the fact that there's no proof or evidence
that God does not exist. Only their own faith, which they're ashamed
of and want to deny.
Oh, look!
Let's see. Let's see you admit your faith, and then try defending it.
What faith would that be, liar?
Let's start with something that should be easy even for you. You have faith
that your belief you won't float off the surface of the planet when you
go outside is correct.
That's not faith; faith is belief without any evidence.
I have the evidence of over 25,000 days when that hasn't happened to me or
anyone else I know.

But you _believe_ that your supposed Jesus character did exactly that,
without the slightest piece of evidence. How stupid is that?

Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
Post by m***@.
Try to admit it and then defend it.
It's your strawman, you defend it.
Post by m***@.
Or try to
deny it and get people to believe you're honestly so stupid you don't
have faith that your belief is correct. Remember though that the point
of this is to demonstrate the correctness of the observation: "their own
faith, which they're ashamed of and want to deny."
What is this faith I'm supposedly ashamed of?
You've not shown that I have any faith, so your lack of mind-reading
skills is showing.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
felix_unger
2015-11-05 23:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 22:52:15 -0700, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
.
In article
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing
exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to
give a reason to accept that your god exists and that means
evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule ~P(~x) then P(x)
substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you
provide evidence that this god thing exists, anything you say
about it is pure fantasy', then according to classic logic you are
also saying 'until I provide evidence of that this god does not
exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is
merely your belief that data has only one possible interpretation
as evidence. And further that the interpretation is only possible
when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be
identifying your axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems
according to some stated logic, usually classic logic with the
excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality,
objectivity, or fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out
refusal to accept testimony of Roman historians and populations of
different cultures just because you don't like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the
title of your bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to
convert nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their
god for the sins of others. So your demands to have christianity
proven true is only an obligation on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers
to convert or be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live
where scary moslems live, so as long as it's others at risk
instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute, boutique, ethnic
belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe...
we just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of
a god cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity
of life and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce
itself, I think that there must be a Creator.
In great contrast to the strong atheists who can't even consider the
possiblity in any realistic ways. Even so, they still believe their
mental inabilities make the somehow superior. Absurd thinking like
that make the atheists themselves evidence of God's existence by
being evidence of Satan (or whatever) having influence on weak human
minds.
When I ask this Creator what it's all about... what he wants from us
and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it
came from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How?
One day it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of
a stretch than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a
Universe. Could there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated
to reveal himself to us or tell us why we're here?
If he were to give us all proof of his existence then we would be
more like
slaves to him, even those who are strong atheists. If he wants us to
have the freedom of thought we do have--if he wants things to be AS
THEY ARE--then he can't give us proof of his existence. That's one of
the basic starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as. They can't
get as "far" as the fact that if God wants things to be as they are,
they might very well be as they are. Another way that their mental
restrictions make them evidence....
No. If there is a Creator, we may be nothing more than lab rats to
him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the
answer, it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator
decides to break his silence.
True. It's impossible to know God doesn't exist if in fact he
does not. The
best a person could do if he doesn't exist is to guess that he does
not, and then put all of their faith in their particular guess
happening to be the correct possibility. ALL those who say God
doesn't exist have nothing but their own faith, which the vast
majority of them are amusingly very much ashamed of. Strong atheism
is more faith based than any other religious belief.
To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity?
That is a god I would hope does not exist.
And I as well. Hopefully it's an exageration. I believe there are
a number
of exagerations like omnipotence and omniscience associated with
beliefs about God. Yet again strong atheists can't get as "far" as
that basic starting line either.
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that
mind was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it
has given me,
But what a great opportunity to have the freedom to consider such things!
Strong atheists can't. They are too mentally restricted to get as
"far" as the basic starting lines. They may be like animals in that
regard, or they may be below animals IF any animals are able to
consider such things. Basic aspects and questions people like you and
I consider and think about, and find frustrating, strong atheists
can't think about realistically at all. So as frustrating as it is
imo we're still in a better position, and we undoubtedly have MUCH
more freedom of thought, than strong atheists.
even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not
even threats of eternal damnation can change.
Agreed. The only way a person can know God exists if he does, is
if he lets
them know it somehow. And usually after that happens if it truly ever
does, those people seem to become slaves dedicating their lives to
God after that, and most other people consider them to be some kind
of kook. But we should also keep in mind there's no way anyone could
ever learn God doesn't exist, even though some people have told me
they did learn it and have amusingly referred to their faith in the
possibility as "knowledge". Those who demand proof (which they very
dishonestly often refer to as "evidence") of God's existence act like
having no proof means God does not exist, while at the same time
being unable to appreciate the fact that there's no proof or evidence
that God does not exist. Only their own faith, which they're ashamed
of and want to deny.
Oh, look!
Let's see. Let's see you admit your faith, and then try defending it.
What faith would that be, liar?
Let's start with something that should be easy even for you. You have faith
that your belief you won't float off the surface of the planet when you
go outside is correct.
That's not faith; faith is belief without any evidence.
it's more than just one thing. it can be confidence or trust in a belief

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Post by Smiler
I have the evidence of over 25,000 days when that hasn't happened to me or
anyone else I know.
so you're that old, but still this stupid. :)
Post by Smiler
But you _believe_ that your supposed Jesus character did exactly that,
without the slightest piece of evidence. How stupid is that?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
they form part of the evidence

http://ausnet.info/evidence/
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Try to admit it and then defend it.
It's your strawman, you defend it.
Post by m***@.
Or try to
deny it and get people to believe you're honestly so stupid you don't
have faith that your belief is correct. Remember though that the point
of this is to demonstrate the correctness of the observation: "their own
faith, which they're ashamed of and want to deny."
What is this faith I'm supposedly ashamed of?
You've not shown that I have any faith, so your lack of mind-reading
skills is showing.
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide" -Col. Allen West
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
http://australianlibertyalliance.org.au/
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President and Imam of the USA
m***@.
2015-12-13 06:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 22:52:15 -0700, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
.
In article
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing
exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to
give a reason to accept that your god exists and that means
evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule ~P(~x) then P(x)
substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you
provide evidence that this god thing exists, anything you say
about it is pure fantasy', then according to classic logic you are
also saying 'until I provide evidence of that this god does not
exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is
merely your belief that data has only one possible interpretation
as evidence. And further that the interpretation is only possible
when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be
identifying your axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems
according to some stated logic, usually classic logic with the
excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality,
objectivity, or fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out
refusal to accept testimony of Roman historians and populations of
different cultures just because you don't like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the
title of your bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to
convert nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their
god for the sins of others. So your demands to have christianity
proven true is only an obligation on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers
to convert or be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live
where scary moslems live, so as long as it's others at risk
instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute, boutique, ethnic
belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe...
we just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of
a god cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity
of life and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce
itself, I think that there must be a Creator.
In great contrast to the strong atheists who can't even consider the
possiblity in any realistic ways. Even so, they still believe their
mental inabilities make the somehow superior. Absurd thinking like
that make the atheists themselves evidence of God's existence by
being evidence of Satan (or whatever) having influence on weak human
minds.
When I ask this Creator what it's all about... what he wants from us
and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it
came from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How?
One day it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of
a stretch than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a
Universe. Could there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated
to reveal himself to us or tell us why we're here?
If he were to give us all proof of his existence then we would be
more like
slaves to him, even those who are strong atheists. If he wants us to
have the freedom of thought we do have--if he wants things to be AS
THEY ARE--then he can't give us proof of his existence. That's one of
the basic starting lines atheists can't get as "far" as. They can't
get as "far" as the fact that if God wants things to be as they are,
they might very well be as they are. Another way that their mental
restrictions make them evidence....
No. If there is a Creator, we may be nothing more than lab rats to
him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the
answer, it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator
decides to break his silence.
True. It's impossible to know God doesn't exist if in fact he
does not. The
best a person could do if he doesn't exist is to guess that he does
not, and then put all of their faith in their particular guess
happening to be the correct possibility. ALL those who say God
doesn't exist have nothing but their own faith, which the vast
majority of them are amusingly very much ashamed of. Strong atheism
is more faith based than any other religious belief.
To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity?
That is a god I would hope does not exist.
And I as well. Hopefully it's an exageration. I believe there are
a number
of exagerations like omnipotence and omniscience associated with
beliefs about God. Yet again strong atheists can't get as "far" as
that basic starting line either.
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that
mind was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it
has given me,
But what a great opportunity to have the freedom to consider such
things!
Strong atheists can't. They are too mentally restricted to get as
"far" as the basic starting lines. They may be like animals in that
regard, or they may be below animals IF any animals are able to
consider such things. Basic aspects and questions people like you and
I consider and think about, and find frustrating, strong atheists
can't think about realistically at all. So as frustrating as it is
imo we're still in a better position, and we undoubtedly have MUCH
more freedom of thought, than strong atheists.
even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not
even threats of eternal damnation can change.
Agreed. The only way a person can know God exists if he does, is
if he lets
them know it somehow. And usually after that happens if it truly ever
does, those people seem to become slaves dedicating their lives to
God after that, and most other people consider them to be some kind
of kook. But we should also keep in mind there's no way anyone could
ever learn God doesn't exist, even though some people have told me
they did learn it and have amusingly referred to their faith in the
possibility as "knowledge". Those who demand proof (which they very
dishonestly often refer to as "evidence") of God's existence act like
having no proof means God does not exist, while at the same time
being unable to appreciate the fact that there's no proof or evidence
that God does not exist. Only their own faith, which they're ashamed
of and want to deny.
Oh, look!
Let's see. Let's see you admit your faith, and then try defending it.
What faith would that be, liar?
Let's start with something that should be easy even for you. You have faith
that your belief you won't float off the surface of the planet when you
go outside is correct.
That's not faith; faith is belief without any evidence.
it's more than just one thing. it can be confidence or trust in a belief
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Another basic starting line they can't get as "far" as.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
I have the evidence of over 25,000 days when that hasn't happened to me or
anyone else I know.
so you're that old, but still this stupid. :)
Sometimes truth is more amusing than fiction.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
But you _believe_ that your supposed Jesus character did exactly that,
without the slightest piece of evidence. How stupid is that?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
they form part of the evidence
http://ausnet.info/evidence/
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Try to admit it and then defend it.
It's your strawman, you defend it.
Post by m***@.
Or try to
deny it and get people to believe you're honestly so stupid you don't
have faith that your belief is correct. Remember though that the point
of this is to demonstrate the correctness of the observation: "their own
faith, which they're ashamed of and want to deny."
What is this faith I'm supposedly ashamed of?
You've not shown that I have any faith, so your lack of mind-reading
skills is showing.
felix_unger
2015-12-17 09:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Let's start with something that should be easy even for you. You
have faith
that your belief you won't float off the surface of the planet when you
go outside is correct.
That's not faith; faith is belief without any evidence.
it's more than just one thing. it can be confidence or trust in a belief
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Another basic starting line they can't get as "far" as.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
I have the evidence of over 25,000 days when that hasn't happened to me or
anyone else I know.
so you're that old, but still this stupid. :)
Sometimes truth is more amusing than fiction.
Hullo. good to see you're still around. this ng is completely dead
lately. it would be good if there was some sensible discussion going
here, but it doesn't seem likely. but have a happy Christmas and New Year!
--
rgds,

Pete
-------
Anti-Racist is a Code Word for Anti-White,
Diversity, multiculturalism, inclusive society, are all code words for White Genocide!
http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html
the picture that shocked the world!.. Loading Image...
"No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President and Grand Imam of the USA
Smiler
2015-12-13 20:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 22:52:15 -0700, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
.
In article
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing
exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to
give a reason to accept that your god exists and that means
evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule ~P(~x) then P(x)
substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you
provide evidence that this god thing exists, anything you say
about it is pure fantasy', then according to classic logic you
are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that this god does
not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is
merely your belief that data has only one possible
interpretation as evidence. And further that the interpretation
is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be
identifying your axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems
according to some stated logic, usually classic logic with the
excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality,
objectivity, or fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out
refusal to accept testimony of Roman historians and populations
of different cultures just because you don't like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is
the title of your bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to
convert nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their
god for the sins of others. So your demands to have christianity
proven true is only an obligation on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands
nonbelievers to convert or be killed, that would be Islam. But
you don't live where scary moslems live, so as long as it's
others at risk instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute,
boutique, ethnic belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe...
we just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence
of a god cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the
complexity of life and marvel at how well it works, and how it
can reproduce itself, I think that there must be a Creator.
In great contrast to the strong atheists who can't even consider the
possiblity in any realistic ways. Even so, they still believe
their mental inabilities make the somehow superior. Absurd
thinking like that make the atheists themselves evidence of God's
existence by being evidence of Satan (or whatever) having
influence on weak human minds.
When I ask this Creator what it's all about... what he wants from
us and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where
it came from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where?
How? One day it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no
more of a stretch than believing in a Universe, and we know there
is a Universe. Could there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he
obligated to reveal himself to us or tell us why we're here?
If he were to give us all proof of his existence then we would
be more like
slaves to him, even those who are strong atheists. If he wants us
to have the freedom of thought we do have--if he wants things to
be AS THEY ARE--then he can't give us proof of his existence.
That's one of the basic starting lines atheists can't get as "far"
as. They can't get as "far" as the fact that if God wants things
to be as they are, they might very well be as they are. Another
way that their mental restrictions make them evidence....
No. If there is a Creator, we may be nothing more than lab rats
to him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the
answer, it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator
decides to break his silence.
True. It's impossible to know God doesn't exist if in fact he
does not. The
best a person could do if he doesn't exist is to guess that he
does not, and then put all of their faith in their particular
guess happening to be the correct possibility. ALL those who say
God doesn't exist have nothing but their own faith, which the vast
majority of them are amusingly very much ashamed of. Strong
atheism is more faith based than any other religious belief.
To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me.
Why create living entities, and then torture them for all
eternity? That is a god I would hope does not exist.
And I as well. Hopefully it's an exageration. I believe there
are a number
of exagerations like omnipotence and omniscience associated with
beliefs about God. Yet again strong atheists can't get as "far" as
that basic starting line either.
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether
that mind was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion
that it has given me,
But what a great opportunity to have the freedom to consider
such things!
Strong atheists can't. They are too mentally restricted to get as
"far" as the basic starting lines. They may be like animals in
that regard, or they may be below animals IF any animals are able
to consider such things. Basic aspects and questions people like
you and I consider and think about, and find frustrating, strong
atheists can't think about realistically at all. So as frustrating
as it is imo we're still in a better position, and we undoubtedly
have MUCH more freedom of thought, than strong atheists.
even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all
eternity because of what it tells me. That is something that
mere words from others like myself cannot ever change. That is
something that not even threats of eternal damnation can change.
Agreed. The only way a person can know God exists if he does,
is if he lets
them know it somehow. And usually after that happens if it truly
ever does, those people seem to become slaves dedicating their
lives to God after that, and most other people consider them to be
some kind of kook. But we should also keep in mind there's no way
anyone could ever learn God doesn't exist, even though some people
have told me they did learn it and have amusingly referred to
their faith in the possibility as "knowledge". Those who demand
proof (which they very dishonestly often refer to as "evidence")
of God's existence act like having no proof means God does not
exist, while at the same time being unable to appreciate the fact
that there's no proof or evidence that God does not exist. Only
their own faith, which they're ashamed of and want to deny.
Oh, look!
Let's see. Let's see you admit your faith, and then try defending it.
What faith would that be, liar?
Let's start with something that should be easy even for you. You have faith
that your belief you won't float off the surface of the planet when
you go outside is correct.
That's not faith; faith is belief without any evidence.
it's more than just one thing. it can be confidence or trust in a belief
Without any evidence.
Post by felix_unger
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Post by Smiler
I have the evidence of over 25,000 days when that hasn't happened to me
or anyone else I know.
so you're that old, but still this stupid. :)
At least I'm not stupid enough to believe in something without a scrap of
evidence that it exists.
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
But you _believe_ that your supposed Jesus character did exactly that,
without the slightest piece of evidence. How stupid is that?
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
they form part of the evidence
http://ausnet.info/evidence/
Then my strongly and sincerely held belief that you owe me $60 million
must be part of the evidence for that debt. When will I be repaid?
Post by felix_unger
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Try to admit it and then defend it.
It's your strawman, you defend it.
Post by m***@.
Or try to deny it and get people to believe you're honestly so stupid
you don't have faith that your belief is correct. Remember though that
the point of this is to demonstrate the correctness of the
observation: "their own faith, which they're ashamed of and want to
deny."
What is this faith I'm supposedly ashamed of?
You've not shown that I have any faith, so your lack of mind-reading
skills is showing.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
j***@gmail.com
2016-01-11 17:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Checkmate, DoW #1
What "God"? Until you provide evidence that this god thing exists,
anything you say about it is pure fantasy. You have to give a reason to
accept that your god exists and that means evidence.
Why are you having so much trouble understanding such a simple concept?
No, I don't have any trouble understanding you. You are using the rule
~Px then P(~x)
where Px means proof of x exists.
~Px then P(~x) your inference rule
~P(~x) then P(x) substitution x ==> ~x and excluded middle
Which means that simultaneously to your statement 'until you provide evidence
that this god thing exists, anything you say about it is pure fantasy', then
according to classic logic you are also saying 'until I provide evidence of that
this god does not exist, anything I say about what it isn't is pure fantasy'.
Do you really want to be logical? What you claim is logic is merely your belief
that data has only one possible interpretation as evidence. And further that the
interpretation is only possible when it benefits you.
You're doing religion, not logic. Real logic would you be identifying your
axiomatic inferences and then deriving theorems according to some stated logic,
usually classic logic with the excluded middle.
As to any notion that your religion is based rationality, objectivity, or
fairness, that is easily belied by your flat out refusal to accept testimony of
Roman historians and populations of different cultures just because you don't
like it.
You're just another bible thumper. The only the difference is the title of your
bible.
By the way the New Testament doesn't obligate christians to convert
nonchristians, nor that christians are punished by their god for the sins of
others. So your demands to have christianity proven true is only an obligation
on yourself.
And if you really need a scary religion that demands nonbelievers to convert or
be killed, that would be Islam. But you don't live where scary moslems live, so
as long as it's others at risk instead of yourself, you can dismiss it as cute,
boutique, ethnic belief.
All of the above proves precisely what I, as an agnostic, believe... we
just don't know, and we have no way of knowing. The existence of a god
cannot be proven or disproven. When I look at the complexity of life
and marvel at how well it works, and how it can reproduce itself, I
think that there must be a Creator. When I ask this Creator what it's
all about... what he wants from us and why we're here, I get no answers,
only silence.
When I wonder at the complexity of the universe, I wonder where it came
from, and how miraculous it all is. Why? From where? How? One day
it occurred to me that believing in a Creator is no more of a stretch
than believing in a Universe, and we know there is a Universe. Could
there then be a Creator? Why not? Is he obligated to reveal himself to
us or tell us why we're here? No. If there is a Creator, we may be
nothing more than lab rats to him.
And that's what I'm left with... As much as I want to know the answer,
it's beyond my ability to know, unless such a Creator decides to break
his silence. To wait for my death, and then punish or reward me,
depending on whether I believed in him, seems pointless to me. Why
create living entities, and then torture them for all eternity? That is
a god I would hope does not exist.
And that's what the mind I was born with has decided. Whether that mind
was given to me by a god or not, that's the conclusion that it has given
me, even if that conclusion means I will somehow suffer for all eternity
because of what it tells me. That is something that mere words from
others like myself cannot ever change. That is something that not even
threats of eternal damnation can change.
--
Checkmate, AUK DoW #1
Official AUK Award Giver-Outer
Copyright © 2015
all rights reserved
A nice write up

Loading...