Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I back it up all the time, dipshit. You’ve never been able to refute it. Want to have another go at it?No, that's just another aspect of your faith. You arentsupporting your magical nonsense. You are merely restating it.The physical, biological and moral laws of nature all point to a creator.
Yes you are, and no you cant. The only thong you can do is lie to yourself out loud. And the only claim i made is that I don't accept a belief in your magical sky daddy nonsense. For you to say i cant "back that up" is nonsensical and shows how you degenerate into an incoherent, babbling state, when you realize you don't have a leg to stand on.Neither am I. The difference being I can back mine up. You can’t.To support...what? Im not making any lofty, magical claims.What do you have?
Never once have you. Sorry ding, your nonsensical babbling, CopyPasta bores, and self soothing pleasantries are not actual support of your embarrassing magical horseshit.I back it up all the time, dipshit.
Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things
I have evidence to stand on. What do you have? Nothing.Yes you are, and no you cant. The only thong you can do is lie to yourself out loud. And the only claim i made is that I don't accept a belief in your magical sky daddy nonsense. For you to say i cant "back that up" is nonsensical and shows how you degenerate into an incoherent, babbling state, when you realize you don't have a leg to stand on.Neither am I. The difference being I can back mine up. You can’t.To support...what? Im not making any lofty, magical claims.What do you have?
It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.Never once have you. Sorry ding, your nonsensical babbling, CopyPasta bores, and self soothing pleasantries are not actual support of your embarrassing magical horseshit.I back it up all the time, dipshit.
The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things
You have zero evidence. You are skilled at lying to yourself, though. But then again,that's what faith is.I have evidence to stand on.
Wrong. You believe in magic. You just don't like calling it that, because it conflates your special ittle magical fetish with all magic.The only one bringing up magic is you.
I have all of creation as my evidence, dipshit. I just explained it to you.You have zero evidence. You are skilled at lying to yourself, though. But then again,that's what faith is.I have evidence to stand on.
No magic necessary. There's nothing magical about an intelligence which exists outside of space and time. You just can't wrap yourself around the concept of a no thing because you are a thing.Wrong. You believe in magic. You just don't like calling it that, because it conflates your special ittle magical fetish with all magic.The only one bringing up magic is you.
Yes,magical sky daddies and miracles are "magic".
Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things
If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things
One can make up lots of alternative explanations, or stories (in your case), but it’s not knowledge without evidence and logic combined.
You don’t need to make up stuff like “universal truth” or “morals” beyond NATURAL processes.If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things
One can make up lots of alternative explanations, or stories (in your case), but it’s not knowledge without evidence and logic combined.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
And yet no one abandons the concept of right and wrong even when they violate itYou don’t need to make up stuff like “universal truth” or “morals” beyond NATURAL processes.If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things
One can make up lots of alternative explanations, or stories (in your case), but it’s not knowledge without evidence and logic combined.
Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.
So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.
Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.
If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.
“Moral or ethical behavior” has antecedent correlates that are all natural.
Empathy is evident in infancy and children learn their thoughts/emotions & behaviors within their social/cultural contexts.
The variety of DNA within same species (incl humans) exhibits differential behavioral patterns (personality) in similar social contexts.