U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Cypress]

And yet again you grossly mischaracterize my position. Honestly if you are physically incapable of being honest about someone else's position perhaps discussing topics isn't for you.

I never said I was "certain". Why do you think I am "certain"????



The water in the puddle does not marvel that it could find a hole that was exactly the same shape as the water.

I don't really see the shape of the hole so much as the fact that we filled the hole. Not the other way round.



Perhaps. If there is an intelligence then I am curious how you solve the BIGGER question of "where did that intelligence come from"? You see you have created an infinite regress which isn't really helpful in explaining anything but your immediate question while creating an infinity of new questions.



Nor do I. I simply operate from the position that I have no real evidence for that intelligence. Clearly you think that the existence of algebra somehow means it was an intelligence that created the universe.

That sounds like a "placeholder" and not really a developed concept that answers any meaningful questions.

I guess I just don't see the need to consider that placeholder any more meaningful that a lack of placeholder.

Congratulations on your absolute and ironclad certainty that a rationally intelligible and mathematically organized universe cannot possibly be the result of a rational agency

If that's not your position, then you are an agnostic faking being an atheist.

 

[Kafka]

Congratulations on your absolute and ironclad certainty

Doubling down on a lie does not make you appear to be an honest person.

that a rationally intelligible and mathematically organized universe cannot possibly be the result of a rational agency

If that's not your position, then you are an agnostic faking being an atheist.

You are among the least honest debater I've run across. So pardon me if I find it hilarious how much you accuse me of dishonesty.

 

[Cypress]

Doubling down on a lie does not make you appear to be an honest person.



You are among the least honest debater I've run across. So pardon me if I find it hilarious how much you accuse me of dishonesty.

You're all over the map.

Now you seem to be insinuating that you actually aren't absolutely certain that a rationally intelligible universe could not be the act of a rational agency.

If you want to hijack to language of agnostics, why the emotional need to co-opt the 'atheist' label?

 

[Kafka]

You're all over the map.

No, I've been consistent with regards to my point. I've even supported my position with citations. I am not all over the map just because you fail to understand my position.

Now you seem to be insinuating that you actually aren't absolutely certain that a rationally intelligible universe could not be the act of a rational agency.

I have been consistent in describing this position to you now for months. You refuse to read what I post. And you continually mischaracterize.

I fail to reject the null hypothesis. That does NOT mean I am 100% certain that is the correct choice. That's how science works. Honestly I'm always fascinated to see how little you seem to actually understand science.

If you want to hijack to language of agnostics, why the emotional need to co-opt the 'atheist' label?

Not hijacking. It's why I give you references and citations for my position. But you can't read them or won't read them (I don't know which). You seem amazingly incapable of understanding other people's position.

 

[Mason 22]

I have found that very few people who recite that quote actually know what it means. Do you?

Of course!

 

[Cypress]

No, I've been consistent with regards to my point. I've even supported my position with citations. I am not all over the map just because you fail to understand my position.



I have been consistent in describing this position to you now for months. You refuse to read what I post. And you continually mischaracterize.

I fail to reject the null hypothesis. That does NOT mean I am 100% certain that is the correct choice. That's how science works. Honestly I'm always fascinated to see how little you seem to actually understand science.





Not hijacking. It's why I give you references and citations for my position. But you can't read them or won't read them (I don't know which). You seem amazingly incapable of understanding other people's position.

Good grief, that null hypothesis nonsense has never been a convincing argument.

You're like the kid that passed a high school chemistry class, and came out of it thinking that experimental science is the only system of thought that provides any knowledge.

There are no microscopes, mass spectrometers, beakers or test tubes that provide any knowledge of liberty, equality, human rights, fairness.

Euclid's elements are not based on the scientific experimental method, but on self-evident geometrical axioms. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is a type of rational argument based on universal principles that do not require electron microscopes or particle accelerators, let alone hypothesis testing.

It is perfectly rational to reason that a rationally intelligible universe could an act of a rational agency, just as it is perfectly rational to reason that the story of Genesis is just metaphor and myth.

 

[Litmus]

Let’s see the fucking policy you claim exists.

deny it first, shitheel.

I don't do busywork. I told you this ass-tard.

 

[Litmus]

You are full of hatred.

acknowledging facts isn't hatred.

 

[Litmus]

A very few atheists are not all atheists. Secular Humanism is not all atheists. Your argument is false and no one would extend the legal definition of atheist to be a religion based on this foot note. If we accept that definition then it would mean that Buddhists are atheists.

If we accept that a subset is the same as the whole then all Christians would be cultists based on the followers of Jim Jones.

all Catholics are cultists based on following the Pope and the catholic boy molester church.

 

[Kafka]

Good grief, that null hypothesis nonsense has never been a convincing argument.

Not for you, of course. That's because you aren't familiar with scientific processes. But if you actually read the references I cited for weak atheism you'd see it is integrated into that position.

There are no microscopes, mass spectrometers, beakers or test tubes that provide any knowledge of liberty, equality, human rights, fairness.

So that's why I explained my position to you using the jury trial example. It's the exact same reasoning. And it's why that sort of thing is taught with jury trial examples!

Your cartoon views of this sort of reasoning demonstrate an astounding lack of knowledge on your behalf. I continually provided external references but apparently you were unable to read them or understand them.

Not sure what the issue was.

 

[domer76]

deny it first, shitheel.

I don't do busywork. I told you this ass-tard.

Show me the fucking policy that you claim exists and I can deny it or not.

But you can’t, can you, bitch?

 

[Litmus]

Show me the fucking policy that you claim exists and I can deny it or not.

But you can’t, can you, bitch?

I can.

do you deny it?

I don't do busywork when there's nothing on the barrel head.

 

[domer76]

I can.

do you deny it?

I don't do busywork when there's nothing on the barrel head.

Then fucking post it, bitch. You claim it exists. Let’s see it. Until then, the only assumption is that you’re lying again, since that’s your track record.

 

[Litmus]

Then fucking post it, bitch. You claim it exists. Let’s see it. Until then, the only assumption is that you’re lying again, since that’s your track record.

you obviously looked it up and are afraid to deny it.

because you know you're a fucking mental garbage skow.

 

[Cypress]

Not for you, of course. That's because you aren't familiar with scientific processes. But if you actually read the references I cited for weak atheism you'd see it is integrated into that position.




So that's why I explained my position to you using the jury trial example. It's the exact same reasoning. And it's why that sort of thing is taught with jury trial examples!

Your cartoon views of this sort of reasoning demonstrate an astounding lack of knowledge on your behalf. I continually provided external references but apparently you were unable to read them or understand them.

Not sure what the issue was.

Good God, this person actually thinks the experimental scientific method is the only system of human knowledge, and that if you can't feel, hear, or see it, it can't exist.

Empirical positivism has long been discredited as supposedly being the only source of human knowledge. Tell me the last time you "saw" infinity, the last time you smelled the quadratic equation, or the last time you "touched" fairness.

 

[Kafka]

Good God, this person actually thinks the experimental scientific method is the only system of human knowledge, and that if you can't feel, hear, or see it, it can't exist.

Do you know what a "jury trial" is? When I mention that it hopefully pulls you out of this non-stop litany of complaining about science.

This type of inference does NOT limit itself solely to science.

God lord, man, surely you are able to grasp this SIMPLE concept.

Empirical positivism has long been discredited as supposedly being the only source of human knowledge. Tell me the last time you "saw" infinity, the last time you smelled the quadratic equation, or the last time you "touched" fairness.

I suggest you actually try READING MY POSTS rather than your silly misinterpretation. SURELY you are smart enough to do that.

But I am starting to wonder.

 

[Cypress]

Do you know what a "jury trial" is? When I mention that it hopefully pulls you out of this non-stop litany of complaining about science.

This type of inference does NOT limit itself solely to science.

God lord, man, surely you are able to grasp this SIMPLE concept.



I suggest you actually try READING MY POSTS rather than your silly misinterpretation. SURELY you are smart enough to do that.

But I am starting to wonder.

Your jury trial fantasy is nonsense.

You seem to think there is no knowledge possible without empirical approaches or inductive reasoning. Empiricism is based on the experience of sensory perception. Induction is working upwards to first principles from individual isolated observations.

If you had actually taken philosophy classes, like you claimed you did, you would know that all knowledge does not come from empiricism and induction. Deductive logic and rationality are part and parcel of human thought systems writ large. Empiricism and rationality are not the same thing, they have very different trajectories in European intellectual history.

Jury trials required tangible physical/empirical evidence. Science is based on inductive reasoning.

But mathematics, geometry, even ontological metaphysics are largely based on deductive logic and deductive reasoning.

There was no empiricism involved in construction of concepts like infinity, the axioms of Euclidian geometry, the principles of number theory, the legalistic derivation of human rights concepts. That knowledge comes primarily from deductive logic and rationality.

Anselm, Descartes, and Aquinas used deductive reasoning in their ontological arguments for god. Newton deduced that the Univeral natural laws were an act of a higher rational agency.

One can argue that their deductive logic and reasoning is flawed.

But you can't claim their arguments are irrational.


Your jury trial illustration is nonsense, because it writes off and ignores whole systems of human thought used to acquire knowledge.

Were your philosophy classes as much of a fantasy as your glorious geochem PhD?

 

[Litmus]

Good God, this person actually thinks the experimental scientific method is the only system of human knowledge, and that if you can't feel, hear, or see it, it can't exist.

Empirical positivism has long been discredited as supposedly being the only source of human knowledge. Tell me the last time you "saw" infinity, the last time you smelled the quadratic equation, or the last time you "touched" fairness.

ok this turned me on.

 

[domer76]

you obviously looked it up and are afraid to deny it.

because you know you're a fucking mental garbage skow.

Nope, I sure as shit didn’t. You said there’s a policy, yet you can’t produce it.

That makes you a fucking liar. Again. Still. Always.

 

[dancindave]

all Catholics are cultists based on following the Pope and the catholic boy molester church.

That Christian Nation SCOTUS "serve the Pope or die" Fourth Reich July with Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking enforcement where Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist "what is 9/11 ?" Freudian slip after thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations national religion of the Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking enforcement killing NYC & Pentagon employees.......