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

[Into the Night]

So what? Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Maxwell, even Einstein to an extent thought physics and cosmology pointed to something divine inherent in the universe.

The Universe is not a person. Cosmology is not physics. Cosmology is not a branch of science. Science is not religion. The Universe is unorganized.

You obviously don't want physics and science to be part of the dialog because you don't understand physics and never took a class in it.

Science is not a class, college, universe. degree, license, or government agency.
Courtier's fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Correct. You are a fundamentalist.

I am a realist.

Evidence is not a quantity. You cannot make any evidence just disappear.

I didn't say evidence was a quantity. I said it is insufficient.

Buzzword fallacy.

Nope.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You have asserted that gods don't exist. The burden of proof for that assertion DOES fall on you.

If I made such an assertion, it would indeed fall on me.

YOU MADE AN ASSERTION THAT "GODS DON'T EXIST."

The burden for the proof of that assertion does fall on you...and so far, you have not met that burden. I suspect that is because you can no more meet it than the religionists can meet the burden of proving their gods exist. But the religionists, mostly, are more honest than you. They, mostly, claim they "believe" their gods exist. You specifically claim gods do not exist.

So, where is your proof that "GODS DON'T EXIST?"

This was my response to ZenMode earlier. (My 3371)

THIS IS WHERE ZEN JUST IGNORES MY RESPONSE AND RETURNS TO HIS BULLSHIT POSTS HEAPING SCORN AND CONTEMPT ON RELIGIONISTS, PRETENDING HE IS SOMEHOW MORE REASONABLE, LOGICAL, AND INTELLIGENT THAN THEY.

Zen, you aren't. Religionists and atheists like you are making blind guesses about the REALITY of existence...and your blind guesses are no more logical, reasonable, scientific, or mathematically derived than are the blind guesses of the religionists.

Just sayin'!

 

[Into the Night]

I am a realist.

Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'real' means.

I didn't say evidence was a quantity. I said it is insufficient.

Lie. Evidence is not a quantity.

Nope.

Denying your fallacies does not make them go away, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

This was my response to ZenMode earlier. (My 3371)

THIS IS WHERE ZEN JUST IGNORES MY RESPONSE AND RETURNS TO HIS BULLSHIT POSTS HEAPING SCORN AND CONTEMPT ON RELIGIONISTS, PRETENDING HE IS SOMEHOW MORE REASONABLE, LOGICAL, AND INTELLIGENT THAN THEY.

Zen, you aren't. Religionists and atheists like you are making blind guesses about the REALITY of existence...and your blind guesses are no more logical, reasonable, scientific, or mathematically derived than are the blind guesses of the religionists.

Just sayin'!

He is not an atheist. He is a fundamentalist in several religions. He doesn't know what 'real' means or how it's defined.

 

[ZenMode]

Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'real' means.

Lie. Evidence is not a quantity.

Denying your fallacies does not make them go away, Void.

As usual, you type lots of words, while contributing nothing.

 

[Monad Portal]

I'm certain that I don't know the answer to all questions, but that isn't a license to create an answer.

There are lots of things that man didn't know, lightning, disease, etc, that he used God to answer ...and he was wrong.

Again, retroactively explaining isn't the same as "it was designed that way".

totalitarians feel a mystery is a threat to their power.

yes. they're that crazy.

 

[Monad Portal]

He is not an atheist. He is a fundamentalist in several religions. He doesn't know what 'real' means or how it's defined.

but he's kicking your ass, dumb faggot.

 

[Cypress]

Cosmology is not a branch of science!!

According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is "the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole."

www.space.com/16042-cosmology.html

The universe is unorganized!!

 

[Cypress]

I'm not agnostic. The evidence for gods is not sufficient for me to believe in them. It's been repeatedly proven to be "God of the gaps".

So on the one hand you are absolutely certain there is no external rational agency behind the origin and mathematical intelligibility of the universe.... but on the other hand, you claim you don't know what caused the origin and rationality of the universe.

That line of thinking is logically incoherent, unintelligible, and self-refuting.


God of the gaps is an atheist argument that holds no water. There's no reason James Clerk Maxwell and Johannes Kepler couldn't point to scientific laws as evidence of a law giver.

 

[gmark77]

I'm not agnostic. The evidence for gods is not sufficient for me to believe in them. It's been repeatedly proven to be "God of the gaps".

For the poster you are interacting with he will NOT allow that "Implicit Atheism" be a thing. He doesn't understand the concept that one can simply LACK belief without having a positive active belief. It doesn't compute for thumpers like Cypress.

Cypress often claims to be an agnostic, but just read his posts. He's a thumper.

 

[Cypress]

It is not possible to have an 'outside' of the Universe!!!

The laws of logic and the laws of math exist independently of time, space, matter, and energy. They are completely immaterial.

 

[ZenMode]

So on the one hand you are absolutely certain there is no external rational agency behind the origin and mathematical intelligibility of the universe....

I'm absolutely certain that I do not believe in any of the gods man has made out of fear or to explain things about the world around him that he didn't understand.

but on the other hand, you claim you don't know what caused the origin and rationality of the universe.

Yes and it's significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than to invent magical beings.

That line of thinking is logically incoherent, unintelligible, and self-refuting.

It's not incoherent at all. Man has used gods and other imaginary beings to explain things like lightning, viruses, mental issues, etc for millenia and have been proven wrong every step of the way.

God of the gaps is an atheist argument that holds no water. There's no reason James Clerk Maxwell and Johannes Kepler couldn't point to scientific laws as evidence of a law giver.

Acknowledging that there are some things we just can't explain yet holds more water than inventing imaginary beings. Inventing imaginary beings has been proven wrong over and over and over.

 

[Monad Portal]

The laws of logic and the laws of math exist independently of time, space, matter, and energy. They are completely immaterial.

oh. like your opinion?

 

[Ross Dolan]

For the poster you are interacting with he will NOT allow that "Implicit Atheism" be a thing. He doesn't understand the concept that one can simply LACK belief without having a positive active belief. It doesn't compute for thumpers like Cypress.

Cypress often claims to be an agnostic, but just read his posts. He's a thumper.

There is such a thing as "implicit" (or weak) atheist. But it is like the many gods...an invention.

A person is an atheist simply because that person has chosen to use "atheist" as a designator. And the reason most, if not all, people who chose to use it do so...is because of a BELIEF...or as I prefer, a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

I do not "believe" any gods exist.

But I choose not to use "atheist" as a designator.

I also do not "believe" there are no gods.

But I choose not to use "theist" as a designator.

IF you use atheist as a designator...you do so because you either "believe" there are no gods...or because you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. Those "beliefs" (or blind guesses) are not appreciably different from the blind guesses of the religionists who simply guess in the opposite direction from you.

 

[gmark77]

There is such a thing as "implicit" (or weak) atheist.

Oh goody! Another moron who doesn't understand the concept is going to decree who can think what. Thus sayeth the LORD ALMIGHTY ROSS.

Fuck off, Ross. I couldn't care less what a know-nothing like you thinks about....ANYTHING.

 

[Monad Portal]

There is such a thing as "implicit" (or weak) atheist. But it is like the many gods...an invention.

A person is an atheist simply because that person has chosen to use "atheist" as a designator. And the reason most, if not all, people who chose to use it do so...is because of a BELIEF...or as I prefer, a blind guess about the REALITY of existence.

I do not "believe" any gods exist.

But I choose not to use "atheist" as a designator.

I also do not "believe" there are no gods.

But I choose not to use "theist" as a designator.

IF you use atheist as a designator...you do so because you either "believe" there are no gods...or because you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. Those "beliefs" (or blind guesses) are not appreciably different from the blind guesses of the religionists who simply guess in the opposite direction from you.

if you don't belieive in no gods that just makes you an atheist hayseed.

 

[Phantasmal]

if you don't belieive in no gods that just makes you an atheist hayseed.

Or a Buddhist

 

[Cypress]

I'm absolutely certain that I do not believe in any of the gods man has made out of fear or to explain things about the world around him that he didn't understand.

That's not the definition of atheist.

If you look in the dictionary, it does not define atheist as disbelief in the ancient Iron age gods that annoy Zenmode.

There are more modern philosophical or naturalistic views of god or the divine universal, aka pantheism, deism, transcendentalism, wicca, etc.

So once again, you are obviously agnostic because you only disbelieve ancient Iron age gods, but have not ruled out philosophically that there is a higher rational agency underlying the universe.

Yes and it's significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than to invent magical beings.

"I do not know" is agnosticism.

It's not incoherent at all. Man has used gods and other imaginary beings to explain things like lightning, viruses, mental issues, etc for millenia and have been proven wrong every step of the way.

Acknowledging that there are some things we just can't explain yet holds more water than inventing imaginary beings. Inventing imaginary beings has been proven wrong over and over and over.

You still keep studiously avoiding answering how something can come from nothing, how the rational can come from the irrational, how lawful order can come from random chance and chaos.

Those aren't abstract, esoteric questions. Those are questions you can relate to your real life experience.

 

[Monad Portal]

So once again, you are obviously agnostic because you only disbelieve ancient Iron age gods, but have not ruled out philosophically that there is a higher rational agency underlying the universe.

versus

"I do not know" is agnosticism.

you have presented two conflicting definitions of agnosticism in this rancid post of stupidity.