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

[Ross Dolan]

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.

My bet is that I hit the nail squarely on its head.

But we can test that...if you have more balls than Zen. Let's see.

You designate yourself an atheist...and I just said that almost certainly means you have one of two beliefs. You are indicating I am full of shit...so...

...I say you "believe" there are no gods...or...

...you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Are you saying that neither of those are "beliefs" of yours?

C'mon. Tell me you do not "believe" there are no gods...

...and you also do not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

C'mon.

You can even lie about it.

 

[Cypress]

versus

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

Think man, think!

"Have not ruled out" is not a knowledge claim nor is it a truth claim.
It is an acknowledgment that you do not presently know for sure one way or the other.

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.

 

[ZenMode]

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.

"I do not know" is agnosticism.

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.

The only gods that there's any evidence for are those written about by man, so those are the only ones I address.

Any other unidentified gods are just ''god of the gaps" type of stuff.

 

[Monad Portal]

Think man, think!

"Have not ruled out" is not a knowledge claim nor is it a truth claim.
It is an acknowledgment that you do not presently know for sure one way or the other.

ya but all that shit about "but have not ruled out ..." is not part of the definition of agnosticism.

you're wordstuffing.

 

[gmark77]

My bet is that I hit the nail squarely on its head.

But we can test that...if you have more balls than Zen. Let's see.

You designate yourself an atheist...and I just said that almost certainly means you have one of two beliefs. You are indicating I am full of shit...so...

...I say you "believe" there are no gods...or...

...you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Are you saying that neither of those are "beliefs" of yours?

C'mon. Tell me you do not "believe" there are no gods...

...and you also do not "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

C'mon.

You can even lie about it.

LOL. I love how your magic phrase has some deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep meaning to you while virtually no one else gives fuck.

I simply fail to believe in people's claims of God.

That is too hard for you to understand and that is really, really sad for you.

Because you don't understand how science or the US Justice system works. Hopefully you don't vote.

 

[Cypress]

ya but all that shit about "but have not ruled out ..." is not part of the definition of agnosticism!!!

English your second language?

If you don't know whether or not there are gods, deities, higher powers, it means you haven't ruled it out or dismissed it as impossible.

 

[Monad Portal]

English your second language?

If you don't know whether or not there are gods, deities, higher powers, it means you haven't ruled it out or dismissed it as impossible.

you were including transcendentalism and wicca and philosophy, vague shit.

 

[Ross Dolan]

LOL. I love how your magic phrase has some deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep meaning to you while virtually no one else gives fuck.

Okay...I see how you feel...and like you, I don't much give a shit how you view me or my comments.

I simply fail to believe in people's claims of God.

So do I...and I have not chosen to use the self-descriptor atheist. You have. I am saying the reason you have more likely is because of a belief (blind guess) than because you fail to believe in some god.

Anyway, you have not answered either of those questions...even after I suggested you could lie and pretend you the answer to both is NO.

Wonder why that is?

That is too hard for you to understand and that is really, really sad for you.

Not sure why you think I do not understand it. I DO UNDERSTAND IT.

I wish you could understand what I am saying. (Actually, I think you do, but you want to defend your "I are a atheist" bullshit and continue to pretend the only reason you are is because of a lack of belief. YOU DO NOT HAVE A LACK OF BELIEF...YOU SIMPLY HAVE BELIEFS THAT ARE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THEISTS AND RELIGIONISTS.

Why not show me I am wrong by answering the questions.

Because you don't understand how science or the US Justice system works. Hopefully you don't vote.

I do vote...and I understand how science works...and how the US justice system works. Probably better than you.

You seem to be unravelling. Don't do that. Stand tall, my friend. Don't let anyone see you sweat.

 

[Monad Portal]

Okay...I see how you feel...and like you, I don't much give a shit how you view me or my comments.


So do I...and I have not chosen to use the self-descriptor atheist. You have. I am saying the reason you have more likely is because of a belief (blind guess) than because you fail to believe in some god.

Anyway, you have not answered either of those questions...even after I suggested you could lie and pretend you the answer to both is NO.

Wonder why that is?


Not sure why you think I do not understand it. I DO UNDERSTAND IT.

I wish you could understand what I am saying. (Actually, I think you do, but you want to defend your "I are a atheist" bullshit and continue to pretend the only reason you are is because of a lack of belief. YOU DO NOT HAVE A LACK OF BELIEF...YOU SIMPLY HAVE BELIEFS THAT ARE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THEISTS AND RELIGIONISTS.

Why not show me I am wrong by answering the questions.

I do vote...and I understand how science works...and how the US justice system works. Probably better than you.

You seem to be unravelling. Don't do that. Stand tall, my friend. Don't let anyone see you sweat.

you're just a pompous ass who can't admit what words mean.

like every dumbass Democrat fool

 

[Into the Night]

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

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Science is not a government agency. Cosmology is not a branch of science. It's a religion.

www.space.com/16042-cosmology.html

YARP. No apparent coherency.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Redefinition fallacies (Universe<->logic, Universe<->mathematics, mathematics<->intelligence). The Universe is unorganized.

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

Inversion fallacy.

God of the gaps is an atheist argument that holds no water.

Buzzword fallacy (God of the gaps). Atheists aren't fundamentalists.

There's no reason James Clerk Maxwell and Johannes Kepler couldn't point to scientific laws as evidence of a law giver.

They wrote those laws. They are both law givers.

 

[ZenMode]

Inversion fallacy.

Another good example.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

If by that you mean he's a fundamentalist, you are right.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Nope. The Universe is unorganized. Time is meaningless. Space is infinite. Matter is unorganized. Energy is at maximum entropy. Matter is material.

No theory of science existed until it was created by an individual.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

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

Yet you claim to know, and even attempt to prove your religion True.

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.

Attempted negative proof fallacy.

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.

Attempted negative proof fallacy.

 

[Hume]

You have no idea the depth of theology I have been taught

You display it with your every post. You are not profound, you are an egotist.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Nope. You cannot just claim to be an atheist. Atheism has a specific meaning.

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.

Atheism is not a religion or belief.

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.

It doesn't matter what you choose.

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.

The Church of No God is a fundamentalist style religion. It is not atheism.

 

[Into the Night]

Another good example.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Margot]

You display it with your every post. You are not profound, you are an egotist.