If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Cypress]

You're actually insane. Yes, I called Christian beliefs irrational. Why do you care?

So I was correct when I stated you had been demeaning to Christian arguments, dismissing all of them out of hand as irrational.

So why did you deny it before?

Like I said, to me being agnostic does not mean being hostile or demeaning to Christianity. It means being open to the possibility of the truth claims of both atheists and religionists.

You haven't been able to refute me a single time.

I never hated, demeaned, or was hostile toward Christians.

Calling every single Christian logical argument irrational after only investigating it for five minutes is demeaning

Why are you so needlessly defensive?

I invite you to look back over the thread and seeing which one of us called the other irrational and illogical first.

Just because I won't join your anti-Christian crusade is not a reason to get angry at me.

Why do you pretend not to be one and then spend the entire day defending them? Don't mischaracterize me again.

I could ask the same of you. Why do you spend the entire day attacking them?

You're the one who jumped into the middle of the thread and started writing to me. I am simply responding to your claims that Christians are irrational. I just choose to not join you in that claim, and I'm stating my reasons why.

You have made multiple claims that you have yet to to back up with any logic or reasoning. Like animals having religion, or the source and cause of the order and design of the universe

I qualified my "I don't care" statement by finishing it with "when what you 'ultimately decided' doesn't have any connection to the real or physical world". I don't know anything about your drama with the other poster, and I don't want to.

You still shouldn't have asked me if you think metaphysical beliefs don't matter.

I'm not going to explain to you why geometry exists, why planets orbit the way they do, and why order exists. That's an educational deficiency on your part.

Now you're getting it.

The rational mathmatical organization and universal mathmatical constants of the universe have no obvious or evident reason for existing.

You can't explain it. I can't explain it. Einstein couldn't explain it. It's curious.

Eisenstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible. Another eminent 20th century physicist famously wondered about the curious and unreasonable effectiveness of Math in describing physical reality.

To me, the most illogical conclusion is that order, organization, and a mathmatical scaffolding popped into existence by from random, inanimate physical reasons

 

[Cypress]

You don't have a logical argument to infer that homo sapiens have a god or transcendent spirit.Just a blind guess that they might.

I don't need to infer they believetheydo . I just have to look at evidence, like churches, synagogues, and ancient ritual cave paintings.

I'm growing weary of you. You're. Um. Crazy. You can move along.

I've yet to hear any of your logical deductions, though you were quick to dismiss the logical deductions I cited.

I'm probably the only real agnostic on the thread.

Being agnostic means being open to a range of truth claims.

It doesn't mean joining an anti-Christian crusade.

I am currently periodically attending an Episcopalian service, attending a Taoist philosophy discussion group, and reading atheist books by seminal atheist authors.

it's really the Bible thumpers and the atheists who are militantly Dogmatic.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Bull fucking shit. You only THINK you are scoring some points.

You don't understand atheism so you want them to comport to your cartoon failure.

That's a STRAWMAN. Go ahead and hit up Google AI to help you understand why that's a flawed means of debate.

Don't worry, some day Google AI will teach you enough to keep up.

When you (a "fake agnostic") are pushed on your position you usually just run away and don't answer.

Well, I don't run away. I am willing to discuss the "agnostic" position...and I am willing to discuss MY position.

Why not discuss it with me...and start by answering the questions I asked earlier?

 

[Ross Dolan]

MY POSITION, for the tenth or more often time:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;

I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;

I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

 

[Into the Night]

“Christians go in with their god as an assumption rather than a conclusion.

Correct. This is a circular argument, but a circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove one True or False creates the fallacy. The other name of the circular argument is the argument of faith. ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that.

In other words, all religions are based on faith.

When in fact, after close examination, the virgin birth falls apart,

Why?

the resurrection falls apart,

Why?

the basis of morality falls apart,

Why?

the promise of afterlife fizzles into fear based marketing.”

You obviously never studied Christianity nor it's glad message.

“The gods of Islam, of Judaism, of Christianity only exist in scripture.

No, Dumber. Scripture is not a god.

If they actually existed, we wouldn’t need the books to claim they did. Once the book fails, the god goes with it.”

What has failed?

 

[Into the Night]

You prove his point by you needing scripture to make yours.

He was not conducting a proof, Dumber.

 

[Into the Night]

Only if the manual makes sense so that one can rely upon it. No contradictions. Everything clear and straightforward. Minimal or no errors. Written by experts.

The Bible meets none of those requirements.

Courtier's fallacy. Negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Telling "christians" to RTFM makes sense since most of them have barely bothered to open it.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone.

 

[Into the Night]

Romans = “Paul said…” Tell us, how the hell does Paul know?

Yep, the ancients had their gods to try to explain nature. Multiple gods. Sun, moon, storm, wind, war, love. Because of science, we now regard those as myths.

Now that man has whittled their gods down to one, it changes nothing about their mythical nature.

Science is not a religion, Dumber.

 

[gmark77]

I rely on Google AI for my talking points!!!

ftfy.

Pitiful.

 

[gmark77]

It's funny how you're taking character references about me from a poster who is smarter than me and doesn't rely on Google AI like I do for my debate points.

FTFY, Cy. You keep fucking up.

 

[gmark77]

I didn't ask for a character reference. I didn't accept a character reference. I asked him and I asked you if you identify as agnostic. I got my answers. Relax.

He will get really upset with you now. Then he'll start insulting you and finally he'll just change your posts and debate against what he mistakenly thinks is your point.

He's really dim. Play nice with Cy. He's got limited smarts.

 

[Cypress]

Play nice with Cy. He's really dim. He's got limited smarts.

Perry, would you even post here if you didn't have my threads to lurk, and my posts to read and respond to?

It seems not. If somebody were to investigate your last 200 posts, I bet 90 percent of them would involve me in some way.

 

[Cypress]

I didn't ask for a character reference. I didn't accept a character reference.

Oh, that's a nice attempt to minimize and downplay the fact you were willing to write me off just based on the word of a sock puppet who is festering with petty grievances about me -->

If he's a closet Christian, then I really have no need for him.

I'm not a closet anything. If it's important for you to know anything about me just ask.

 

[gmark77]

Perry, would you even post here if you didn't have my threads to lurk, and my posts to read and respond to?

1. I don't know why you keep calling me Perry. I can only imagine there's some reason.

2. If you actually note I respond to quite a few posts on this forum, not just yours. But you are self-absorbed so anyone who comes on here and points out your obvious limitations appears much larger in your view.

It seems not. If somebody were to investigate your last 200 posts, I bet 90 percent of them would involve me in some way.

Recently yeah because you've been on a roll. When you FINALLY admitted you use Google AI I knew it was going to be fun!

Why don't you tell us what Google AI says?

 

[gmark77]

Oh, that's a nice attempt to minimize and downplay the fact you were willing to write me off just based on the word of a sock puppet who is festering with petty grievances about me -->

LOLOLOLOL. Maybe you don't appear as smart as you think to others that they would take my assessment as valid. Hmmmm. Makes ya think doesn't it?

I'm not a closet anything.

Given your association with Doc Douche I'm guessing that's not entirely correct.

f it's important for you to know anything about me just ask.

Why do you hate atheism so much?

 

[Diesel]

So I was correct when I stated you had been demeaning to Christian arguments, dismissing all of them out of hand as irrational.

No, you fucking idiot. I said Christian beliefs are irrational. That's an objective word. There was no hate, demeaning, or hostility involved in a single thing I said (until I called you a fucking idiot right here). You either have a guilty conscience or are self defensive. Either way, you're a misguided soul.

So why did you deny it before?

Like I said, to me being agnostic does not mean being hostile or demeaning to Christianity. It means being open to the possibility of the truth claims of both atheists and religionists.

Calling every single Christian logical argument irrational after only investigating it for five minutes is demeaning

Look, bitch, I denied it because I didn't do it. You are not equipped to rewrite reality or assign intentions to my posts that didn't exist.

I was a Catholic for 20 years and have studied religion my entire life. You need to stop making false assumptions about me because you're hurt about an offense that I never presented to a religion that you pretend not to belong to. Why is your asshole so clenched about Christianity but not any other religion? To me, they all have equivalent worth or worthlessness. A person does not need to subscribe to a brainwashed religion in order to commune with a higher spirit -- if one or more of them exist. I am more than open to the possibility of a deity, but she has never bothered to present herself to me. Nor to any other person in the entire history of humanity. Think about what that means.

I invite you to look back over the thread and seeing which one of us called the other irrational and illogical first.

Just because I won't join your anti-Christian crusade is not a reason to get angry at me.

I never said a single anti-Christian thing. What I will say is that I think you're a crackhead.

I could ask the same of you. Why do you spend the entire day attacking them?

You're the one who jumped into the middle of the thread and started writing to me. I am simply responding to your claims that Christians are irrational. I just choose to not join you in that claim, and I'm stating my reasons why.

You have made multiple claims that you have yet to to back up with any logic or reasoning. Like animals having religion, or the source and cause of the order and design of the universe

I actually had no problem with you ever in this forum until this exchange. I have discovered that you are not a completely thinking person and that you insist on mischaracterizing other people's posts in order to argue a point they never made. You are awful at debating and dishonest about who you are. Your personality crisis needs a therapist, not an online political board.

You still shouldn't have asked me if you think metaphysical beliefs don't matter.

Now you're getting it.

The rational mathmatical organization and universal mathmatical constants of the universe have no obvious or evident reason for existing.

You can't explain it. I can't explain it. Einstein couldn't explain it. It's curious.

Eisenstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible. Another eminent 20th century physicist famously wondered about the curious and unreasonable effectiveness of Math in describing physical reality.

To me, the most illogical conclusion is that order, organization, and a mathmatical scaffolding popped into existence by from random, inanimate physical reasons

That isn't proof of a god. That's all I'm saying. *That* is the agnostic position. You are a theist, not an agnostic. Own it and stop wasting other people's time with your disingenuousness. Just because you don't understand math (the word you continue to misspell, by the way, is "mathematical") does not mean there is a god. You possess an irrational belief, and that isn't an insult. It's an observation of fact.

 

[Diesel]

I don't need to infer they believetheydo . I just have to look at evidence, like churches, synagogues, and ancient ritual cave paintings.

When's the last time you saw an art or an aardvark build a church or a synagogues or ritually paint ancient caves? Do you think before you post?

I've yet to hear any of your logical deductions, though you were quick to dismiss the logical deductions I cited.

I'm probably the only real agnostic on the thread.

Being agnostic means being open to a range of truth claims.

It doesn't mean joining an anti-Christian crusade.

I am currently periodically attending an Episcopalian service, attending a Taoist philosophy discussion group, and reading atheist books by seminal atheist authors.

it's really the Bible thumpers and the atheists who are militantly Dogmatic.

That's nice. I'm neither. And you aren't agnostic. You described your personal philosophy pretty thoroughly. You either don't know what the word means or are embarrassed to identify outwardly with your Christianity. That's a you problem.

 

[Diesel]

MY POSITION, for the tenth or more often time:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;

I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;

I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

And *that* is a perfect way to describe one's own agnosticism. I feel the way you do.

 

[Diesel]

He will get really upset with you now. Then he'll start insulting you and finally he'll just change your posts and debate against what he mistakenly thinks is your point.

He's really dim. Play nice with Cy. He's got limited smarts.

You nailed it. That's exactly what happened. He's calling me anti-Christian even though all I said was that I don't know if a god or gods exist and any belief -- including the Christian belief -- that one or more of them do exist is irrational. That's a factual statement without hate or hostility as he attempted to accuse me of.