Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/.


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/


The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10226095/
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of the Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10222908/
That's Really Weird


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223665/
That's Really Weird Too


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/
The Wire - Associated Press: Taz declares the greatest scientific feat in history!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223597/
Delta4Embassy Habitually Writes Posts that are Really Weird


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
The Betty Boop Chronicles


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253691/
The Universal Principle of Human Relations


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253778/
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253861/
Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
Summary Post - Part II

 

[Hollie]

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/.


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/


The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10226095/
Taz Affirms the OP's Charge Regarding the Character and the Quality of the Intellect of the Typical Atheist (or Materialistic Pantheist) on this Forum


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10222908/
That's Really Weird


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223665/
That's Really Weird Too


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10251424/
The Wire - Associated Press: Taz declares the greatest scientific feat in history!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10223597/
Delta4Embassy Habitually Writes Posts that are Really Weird


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
The Betty Boop Chronicles


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253691/

The Universal Principle of Human Relations


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178804/
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Conempt


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
Summary Post - Part II

The typical cut and paste of the religious zealot.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt


No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread: Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.

All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it's possible to refute these things?

In your dreams, Missy.

The real conflict is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.

The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, refute each other, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.

BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.

Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!

I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.

But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.

(I'm reminded of The Mummy starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." I turn to the camera: "Relativists.")

Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition that are logically necessary. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're defending against Boss' assault.

In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into a sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.

And why is that true?

Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, a priori axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.

Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical a priorities that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.

These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.

Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.

 

[Hollie]

The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt


No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread: Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.

All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it's possible to refute these things?

In your dreams, Missy.

The real conflict is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.

The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, refute each other, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.

BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.

Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!

I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.

But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.

(I'm reminded of The Mummy starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." I turn to the camera: "Relativists.")

Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition that are logically necessary. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're defending against Boss' assault.

In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into a sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.

And why is that true?

Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, a priori axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.

Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical a priorities that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.

These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.

Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.

More of the babbling of the low IQ religious zealots.

Nothing but pointless cutting and pasting.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .

Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not. Your god is (1) the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.

(2) The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. (3) The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.

But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.

Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!

For crying out loud! Martin's argument is premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?

By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology: God created everything!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.

BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Why Even Atheistic Absolutists Regard All Relativists with Contempt


No one has refuted Justin. No one has refuted me. No one has refuted any of the other absolutists who have been on this thread: Where Are My Keys, Abba, peach, Mohamed, Rikurzhen (an atheist, by the way), Delta4Empassy (a pantheist), bigrebnc1775, ninja007, MaxGrit, The Human Being and many others . . . before you showed up and started spouting the mindlessly arrogant slogans of ignorance.

All of the persons in the above have argued the objective facts of human cognition directly intuited from the universal, bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic thought. How the hell do you figure it's possible to refute these things?

In your dreams, Missy.

The real conflict is relativism versus absolutism, while thoughtless, closed-minded fanatics like you think it's about something else.

The relativists on this thread necessarily affirm the inescapable facts of cognition every time they open their yaps to assert anything, just like you have . . . as they, in reality, utterly unawares, refute each other, intolerantly negate the only foundation from which any one of us can assert the potentialities of our respective convictions and coherently understand one another without bias.

BreezeWood doesn't even grasp the fact that Boss' contention immediately negates the potentiality of BreezeWood's pantheism/panentheism, while at the same time it undermines the construct of theism in general. So Boss, a theist, argues against himself, while I'm trying to defend the validity of theism in general, beginning with the rationally unjustified assault on BreezeWood's conviction.

Yet BreezeWood, in his turn, attacks the premise of his conviction as he argues with me out of his hatred for Christianity, even though I'm not even arguing Christianity as such, but the objective universals regarding the problems of existence and origin that defend the premise of his conviction. BreezeWood's real argument is with Boss, but BreezeWood argues against himself as he argues with me!

I civilly tried to help him understand this, but, no, like you, Missy, another relativist, he refused to think about anything I shared with him and became increasingly surly and obnoxious. So I told him to piss off.

But you, you little hypocrite, without clue as to what has transpired before you showed up think to pass judgment on me. Piss off, Missy.

(I'm reminded of The Mummy starring Brandon Fraser when he turns to the camera in a direct aside to the audience, rolls his eyes and says, "Mummies." I turn to the camera: "Relativists.")

Earlier the atheists were arguing with Boss, asserting the universal logical principle of identity against Boss' irrationalism, while simultaneously asserting the irrationalism of negating the logical principle of identity by conflating the secondary potentialities of human cognition that are not logically necessary with the primary axioms of human cognition that are logically necessary. Hence, they contradictorily think to impose the fallacies of informal logic on the axioms of formal logic in their reactionism against the "God axiom" of the very same laws of organic thought they're defending against Boss' assault.

In the meantime, atheistic absolutists who are professional logicians known that the strongest foundation for atheism, ironically, is the foundation of absolute objectivity which evinces the necessity to universally uphold the axioms of human cognition, including the God axiom, even though it throws atheism into a sea of paradox relative to the imperatives of organic logic.

And why is that true?

Well, for one thing, logical consistency necessarily holds that if the God axiom is not justified true belief/knowledge, then all of the primary, a priori axioms of human cognition, including those of mathematics, are fallacies. That's absurd! But, ultimately, this is necessary because the principle of identity is the universally indispensable foundation for all forms of logic, and the presuppositionals thereof are indispensable to the technically analytic forms of logic used for intuitively generating new and imaginative hypotheticals for computer science and the natural sciences.

Hence, the strongest position for the atheist is not to default to relativism as the philosophical ignoramuses of atheism do, but to simply adopt an objective, materialistic posture premised on the epistemological skepticism of constructive/intuitionistic logic. Now even this position remains problematical . . . on a personal level, because the biological fact of the God axiom and the implications thereof, which entail a moral/spiritual obligation on humanity's part toward God, does not go away; but this posture allows the atheist to avoid the pitfalls of irrationalism and practice the logical and natural sciences in a coherent fashion. What atheist absolutists are most concerned about avoiding is unwittingly biasing their evaluations of phenomena by presupposing metaphysical a priorities that are rationally and empirically indemonstrable.

These are the atheists with whom I can coherently communicate and do business with, as these are not of the obnoxiously arrogant sort. Their minds are open to the real possibility that their inclination might very well be wrong as they know for a fact that the theist's position is perfectly and justifiably rational. Hence, they don't have a problem doing business with committed theists either.

Absolutist theists and atheists understand and respect one another, and both tend to be contemptuous of relativists . . . because the latter, whether they be theists, agnostics or atheists, generally don't have a lick of common sense, have a false sense of intellectual superiority and are the most tiresomely dogmatic, closed-minded pricks.

More of the babbling of the low IQ religious zealots.

Nothing but pointless cutting and pasting.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253751/
Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity

 

[Hollie]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .

Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not. Your god is (1) the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.

(2) The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. (3) The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.

But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.

Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!

For crying out loud! Martin's argument is premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?

By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology: God created everything!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.

BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.

It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .

Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not. Your god is (1) the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.

(2) The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. (3) The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.

But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.

Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!

For crying out loud! Martin's argument is premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?

By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology: God created everything!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.

BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.

It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.

Sweet! The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves

What a fool you are, Hollie. You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle: rationally, morally, scientifically. So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out: the theological axioms of human psychology, (1) God must exist, and (2) God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!

If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic? Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us. That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.

Yep! Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue. No one escapes the imperatives of the TAG. No one escapes the imperatives of The Seven Things™.

Why?

Because no one escapes the laws of thought and the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin thereof!

Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah. That's right.

I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass himself again (proper grammatical pronoun reference as I'm not a feminist loon), you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/. Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?

No, of course not! You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!

God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?

Answer: Pretty darn stupid.

 

[Hollie]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .

Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not. Your god is (1) the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.

(2) The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. (3) The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.

But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.

Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!

For crying out loud! Martin's argument is premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?

By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology: God created everything!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.

BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.

It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.

Sweet! The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves

What a fool you are, Hollie. You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle: rationally, morally, scientifically. So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out: the theological axioms of human psychology, (1) God must exist, and (2) God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!

If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic? Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us. That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.

Yep! Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue. Nobody escapes the TAG. Nobody escapes The Seven Things™.

Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah. That's right.

I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass yourself again, you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/. Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?

No, of course not! You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!

God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?

Sweet! The Religious Zealot Continues to Refute His Own Flaccid Attempt At A Coherent Argument.

Wow. For all that confused, rambling tirade, you managed only to define your incompetence. Martins' refutation to your silly claims still stands.

My refutation to your pointless Seven Fraudulent Things™ still stands.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .

Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not. Your god is (1) the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.

(2) The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. (3) The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.

But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.

Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!

For crying out loud! Martin's argument is premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?

By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology: God created everything!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.

BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.

It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.

Sweet! The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves

What a fool you are, Hollie. You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle: rationally, morally, scientifically. So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out: the theological axioms of human psychology, (1) God must exist, and (2) God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!

If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic? Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us. That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.

Yep! Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue. Nobody escapes the TAG. Nobody escapes The Seven Things™.

Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah. That's right.

I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass yourself again, you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/. Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?

No, of course not! You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!

God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?

Sweet! The Religious Zealot Continues to Refute His Own Flaccid Attempt At A Coherent Argument.

Wow. For all that confused, rambling tirade, you managed only to define your incompetence. Martins' refutation to your silly claims still stands.

My refutation to your pointless Seven Fraudulent Things™ still stands.

Sweet! Hollie refutes herself with her own words and arguments again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/,
"Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™"!

 

[G.T.]

Wow. You really need some friends, dude.

 

[Hollie]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Epistemological Relativism is Utter Lunacy!


Blah blah blah blah blah. . . .

Your god is utter nonsense. You're spouting epistemological relativism whether you realize it or not. Your god is (1) the infamous Theological Fallacy that has been negated since time immemorial, an inherently contradictory, self-negating god of sheer lunacy. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.

(2) The Omnipotence Paradox Fallacy negates your god. (3) The Omniscience Paradox Fallacy negates your god. These too are manifestly absurd, inherently contradictory and self-negating. All three of these fallacies negate themselves and each other.

But even you're not as insane as Michael Martin. Check this guy out.

Martin is the retard unwittingly asserting the actualities of the TAG that affirm the actualities of the TAG. His argument negates your god too. But, of course, he's merely making the very same observations that I made I based on the three laws of thought to negate the absurdity of the Theological Fallacy! Your fallacy, Boss! Your fallacy!

For crying out loud! Martin's argument is premised on the very same theological axioms of human psychology (the necessity of God's existence and the necessity that God is the essence of the laws of logic, the universal Principle of Identity) he inexplicably imagines to be refuting! How messed up is that?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

And how does he manage to entangle himself in this sociopathic web of mental masturbation?

By arbitrarily claiming out of the thin air of angel dust and fairies wearing boots that the TAG and some mysterious "brand of Christianity" hold that the Theological Fallacy is not a fallacy, but a rational fact of ontology: God created everything!

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

The three laws of thought prove out no such imbecilic thing. The theological axioms of human psychology hold no such imbecilic thing. The TAG asserts no such imbecilic thing. The Bible holds no such imbecilic thing. Judeo-Christianity holds no such imbecilic thing. Indeed, no major philosophical or theological system of thought regarding the exigencies of divinity in history, for obvious reasons, holds no such imbecilic thing. Even Kant, ultimately, a subjectivist, held no such imbecilic thing. And the orthodox Christian Cornelius Van Til, whose utterly unassailable version of the TAG Martin disputes, held no such imbecilic thing.

BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.

It's actually comedy gold to see the pissing match taking place between the religious zealots. They're both using their magical inventions of gawds to make a case for their inventions of supernatural realms inhabited by these angry gawds who apparently have no issue with petulant 12 year olds making the gawds as little more than school yard bullies.

Sweet! The Atheists/Relativists Continue to Negate Themselves

What a fool you are, Hollie. You're the one who posted Martin's refutation of Boss' lunatic god, the very same refutation I asserted against Boss' lunatic god over and over again, and from every angle: rationally, morally, scientifically. So that means, just like that retard Martin, you unwittingly affirm what the laws of thought prove out: the theological axioms of human psychology, (1) God must exist, and (2) God must be the very essence of the three laws of thought, the universal Principle of Identity Himself!

If Martin is claiming otherwise then why does he assert what the laws of thought prove out about the obviously stupid notion that God created everything, including logic? Obviously, according to the laws of thought, God did not create the logic we have, but bestowed His eternally existent logic on us. That's the only condition that rationally holds up in the face of the three laws of thought: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. Martin, by presupposing that the three laws of thought are universally absolute, necessarily holds that God must exist and must be the universal Principle of Identity Himself.

Yep! Accordingly to the laws of organic logic, Martin necessarily asserts an inherently contradictory, self-negating argument that in actuality positively proves the very opposite of what he was trying to argue. Nobody escapes the TAG. Nobody escapes The Seven Things™.

Isn't that right, Hollie? Yeah. That's right.

I was just waiting for some dummy like you to embarrass yourself again, you know, refute himself again, by posting Martin's imbecilic argument, which, by the way, I already negated here directly: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/. Also, weren't you thinking about my negations of Boss' insanity in the other posts?

No, of course not! You nitwits never read or think about anything, so it was inevitable, and the fact that you posted such a stupid thing even after I warned you about how stupid it is . . . well, that just makes it all the more sweeter!

God created everything?! LOL! How stupid is that?

Sweet! The Religious Zealot Continues to Refute His Own Flaccid Attempt At A Coherent Argument.

Wow. For all that confused, rambling tirade, you managed only to define your incompetence. Martins' refutation to your silly claims still stands.

My refutation to your pointless Seven Fraudulent Things™ still stands.

Sweet! Hollie refutes herself with her own words and arguments again: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/,
"Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™"!

I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.

I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of The Seven Fraudulent Things™.

Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.

I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of The Seven Fraudulent Things™.

Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.

Sweet! Hollie refutes herself with her own words and arguments again: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum, "Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™"!

 

[Hollie]

I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.

I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of The Seven Fraudulent Things™.

Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.

Sweet! Hollie refutes herself with her own words and arguments again: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum, "Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™"!

Really, dude. You need to get back to drinking. At least you'll have a personality.

I see you're desperate to avoid the embarrassment of your failed arguments.

I'm putting you down as in agreement for the failure of The Seven Fraudulent Things™.

Before you post again and further demonstrate your incompetence, I should preview your posts so as to avoid your further deconstruction of the arguments you cut and paste.

 

[Justin Davis]

... bestowed on mankind!

rawly's logic - - the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.

Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.

The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
and attached to a position less than perfect,
is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.

So how are you any better or worse than M.D.

Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.

would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?

go ahead.

If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
and let M.D. post his.

I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth

much easier to point to your neighbor

perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly

I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science

are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that

Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
is that why you avoid it?

would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural

here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
Storm - Tim Minchin music and video

if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyones just staring at me now,
But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mystery, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the fucking Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there's a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
Ever solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you're so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
Then whatever, that's ok.

But here's what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long
As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you'll change your mind.

.

christian: I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

christian: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

- at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.


... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

correctly stated, sinner - prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.

View attachment 34456

.

 

[Hollie]

... bestowed on mankind!

rawly's logic - - the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.

Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.

The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
and attached to a position less than perfect,
is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.

So how are you any better or worse than M.D.

Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.

would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?

go ahead.

If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
and let M.D. post his.

I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth

much easier to point to your neighbor

perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly

I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science

are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that

Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
is that why you avoid it?

would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural

here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
Storm - Tim Minchin music and video

if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyones just staring at me now,
But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mystery, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the fucking Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there's a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
Ever solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you're so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
Then whatever, that's ok.

But here's what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long
As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you'll change your mind.

.

christian: I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

christian: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

- at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.


... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

correctly stated, sinner - prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.

View attachment 34456

.

There was no anticipation you would have any ability to refute the argument.

 

[Boss]

MD, you are free to believe in whatever kind of God your mind conjures up, but a God who did not create all things is a God I don't believe in. My God created the universe and everything in it. All the math, science, physics, chemistry, logic, reason, knowledge... the whole shebang.

My God is omniscient, therefore, has no use for knowledge, as it would be redundant. Omniscience means you already know all things, there is nothing more to learn. No need for My God to contemplate or think. No need for logic because My God is also omnipotent. Omnipotence means all-powerful. My God has no use for Logic or Laws of Thought. My God doesn't need to rationalize or evaluate, that is covered under the terms of omniscience and omnipotence.

These are attributes God has assigned to human beings who are neither omniscient or omnipotent. What a LOT of humans have done is take things associated with humans and juxtaposed them onto a God of their own creation. We do this because humans need to humanize things to understand them. By assigning humanistic attributes to God, we are better able to relate to God. God becomes someone who you'd have a beer with and shoot the shit. It helps us imagine God better.... Like, you can probably envision YOUR God up there stomping His feet in frustration that no one is accepting your copy-n-paste diatribes here. He's going to become so angry he shoots out a lighting bolt and zaps Hollie and GT in the butt! He may even get pissed at me and think I am mocking Him. If I develop a genital rash now, I will know that is a "sign" from above to shut my pie hole.

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

Dear Boss
I think your and BreezeWood approach to the Almighty aligns closer to Buddhists and others who see the Creation as a whole, with no beginning and no end

And MD Justin and Christians like them tend to focus on the point at which man became aware of God and our will in relation to Godswill.

So the Christians may focus on a representation of the timeline from awareness of God to the falling away from natural laws peace and order to the process of reconciling our will and restoring balance between peace and freedom for equal justice.

These are not supposed to be in conflict but should reconcile in the process of establishing truth and justice for peace.

MD timeline and focus is set up differently totell the same story. The story is the same but not being told in the same person.

He cannot see your angle either.
I can see parts of both of yours from where I am coming from. I think you may be closer to BW and I connect more with MD. Together we cover more ground. Even if these don't capture the whole thing, we each catch parts the other approaches miss. We need all these to cover all areas.

Well I don't think my view is anything like Breeze. He said prayer was a useless waste of time.... right? See, I don't believe that. I accept your view that prayer is powerful medicine. Any time humans can tap into Spiritual Energy it is beneficial to humans, regardless of the means by which they do the tapping.

If you want to believe in MD's God, that's your business but it's a false God. It is a God of MD's making, it's MD's 'God Bitch' who does MD's bidding. Feckless and powerless against the forces of human thought and logic, his God is relegated to the powers MD's ordains. So we all have to look to MD to know who God really is, and I am not sure about what we do when MD dies... maybe there is a sabbatical until a new pontiff can be selected and they will issue smoke signals from MD's home?

As I stated, I am a Spiritualist. I don't know that we have any other Spiritualists in this thread or at USMB. So you can't really lump me in with anyone else here. My Spiritualistic beliefs help me to understand and have perspective on the various beliefs of others. You would think such a belief would make me resoundingly popular around here, but what I find is, if you don't subscribe to someone else's vision of God, you are a heathen bound for hell or dismissed as a kook.

 

[BreezeWood]

... bestowed on mankind!

rawly's logic - - the supremacy of self gratuity ....

.

Dear BreezeWood: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

The universality of prayer has been studied in scientific research.

The same effort it would take you to accept that and admit you are hardheaded
and attached to a position less than perfect,
is what you ask or criticize M.D. for not doing.

So how are you any better or worse than M.D.

Is it because you hide the fact that you deny prayer and spiritual healing,
while at least M.D. proclaims what he says in public.

would you be willing to present your points that prayer or spiritual healing are made up?

go ahead.

If you are so sure you know better, you are welcome to post your points
and let M.D. post his.

I don't think you are that confident in what you claim as truth BreezeWood
it is easier for you to pick on M.D. than risk sticking your own foot in your mouth

much easier to point to your neighbor

perhaps M.D. makes you feel bad you do not have the
same knowledge and faith that you would back these publicly

I offered to bet you 10 million that spiritual healing can be demonstrated by science

are you going to avoid that question and just keep picking on M.D. as an easier target
Let me know what you are made of BreezeWood
I can't seem to figure out why you are so against absolutes
one minute, then swear absolutely prayer is a lie and spiritual healing is false,
then don't answer when I challenge you to a bet on using science to prove that

Are you more afraid that science coudl prove spiritual healing as natural and valid
is that why you avoid it?

would it upset your world view to find there are forms of healing
prayer that have changed people lives by receiving forgiveness and letting go of
negativity that was holding back their growth, is that too disturbing to think there could be truth to christian teachings as positive and natural

here BreezeWood here's a peace offering enjoy:
Storm - Tim Minchin music and video

if you take Tim Minchin's statement on naturalist views without religion
and apply it back to spiritual healing then you can have both natural
knowledge and spiritual knowledge without conflict or competing with each other.

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!

You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve Fancy That on the side of my cock.”

Everyones just staring at me now,
But I'm pretty pissed and I've dug this far down,
So I figure, in for penny, in for a pound:

“Life is full of mystery, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the fucking Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra

If you're going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there's a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide.
Throughout history
Every mystery
Ever solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be truth
Frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural
So blow your hippy noodle
That you would rather just stand in the fog
Of your inability to Google?

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex
Wonderfully unfathomable, NATURAL world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention
That we have to diminish it with the invention
Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?
If you're so into Shakespeare
Lend me your ear:

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw perfume on the violet… is just fucking silly”
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,
And fine, if you wish to
Glorify Krishna and Vishnu
In a post-colonial, condescending
Bottled-up and labeled kind of way
Then whatever, that's ok.

But here's what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant lump of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short
And unimportant…
But thanks to recent scientific advances
I get to live twice as long
As my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty
With good-looking hippies
With fairies on their spines
And butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time,
For all the chance you'll change your mind.

.

christian: I believe your conviction and calling (mdr) is critical for reaching elders of each denomination to form an agreement on how to present, explain and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

christian: At least M.D. Rawlings has a healthy mature understanding of
Spiritual Healing while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

... and teach the meaning of God and the Trinity as universal.

- at least mdr knows better than to try and relate a practical purpose for his fallacious and irrelevant seven things to his embarrassingly foolish, ill conceived and provocative religion.


... while you deny prayer has any positive purpose in human life or experience.

correctly stated, sinner - prayer has no positive purpose in human life or experience.

View attachment 34456

.

There was no anticipation you would have any ability to refute the argument.

.
they have an aversion against practical application and verifications ...

.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. RE:

My God is Spiritual Energy. I am a Spiritualist. That is not a Religion. I don't believe in a God who punishes and rewards, who loves and cares, who gets angry and condemns or happy and forgives. Other people believe in that God and I am fine with that. My God doesn't have sentience... doesn't need it.... has no use for it. Like logic and thought, these are attributes God gave to humans.

M.D.:
A. Yours is the god of imbeciles. In truth, your god is you.
B. The notion that God created everything is imbecilic on the very face of it!

2. BreezeWood, another relativistic lunatic, is arguing with Emily about the efficacy of prayer and spiritual healing as he poo-poos the absolute, objective facts of human cognition that no human being can refute.

EMILY!

These people are relativists! They're lunatics! No consensus can be formed on the basis of epistemological relativism. It is utter lunacy! There is but one and only one premise for consensus: the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, i.e., the universal ground of absolute objectivity.

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
1. First can we address why you and Boss can't both have your own representation of God.

A. for you to say Boss' God is a reflection of man's own relative or imbecilic views
Boss did not say man made all these things, but is equating God with the source/creation of all things.
This IS Boss' way of saying that God is above man and should NOT be made smaller by man's projection on God.
How ironic that Boss also objects that you are projecting your own framework onto God!

B. I see nothing wrong with either Boss putting God on the level of having created all things including logic and knowledge
while you place some things in creation as pre-existing and then God created the rest. As long as you explain this,
I can work with that, if that's how you set it up.

both are fine to me as long as you stay consistent within your own systems,
like not changing keys in the middle of the song where you confuse the listener.

Scott Peck, in his book on Glimpses of the Devil, also recognized some Christians start and restrict the timeline
at the 6000 years of the Hebrew lineage, while others include stages of prehumanoid and prehistory in the millions of years before that timeframe. both are coexisting, both are interpreting the same Bible, but they frame it differently. fine!

As long as we know which timeframe people are using, we can still refer to the phases or changes
that occur within each progression. It doesn't have to be exactly the same to line up in parallels.

M.D. that's the beauty of it, and how God makes us different.

the person who paints a portrait of Madonna in color pointillism, or the one who snaps a photo in black and white,
the kid who draws her in crayon in scribbles, or the artist who does an ink caricature
are all painting the same subject, but interpreting and expressing what they see differently. Even Picasso might
draw her nose completely on the wrong side of her face and it's still Madonna.

2. As for BreezeWood, Boss you and me agree it is inconsistent to exclude spiritual healing and prayer "absolutely"
(while also objecting to absolutism)

Can we work in teams.
Hollie and I both object to how you and Boss frame your own representation of God to the exclusion of the other.
Hollie thinks both are false and downright silly to argue. I think both are equally valid and thus should not compete.

How about one team where Hollie and I, you and Boss, challenge each other to come to a consensus
or to agree to separate and respect each other's views. Without calling names like imbecile or zealots projecting.

And for the other team, Boss and me, Justin and you, can challenge BreezeWood and maybe TAZ
on this spiritual healing prayer business.

My theory is that for both focus points
whoever is the most forgiving will reconcile first.

Whoever is the least forgiving will fight and obstruct more and take longer to resolve the issues.

So the real key is more about forgiveness than it is the actual points.
that is the key to unraveling the knots, to loosen the entanglements causing deadlocks.

the points will eventually resolve themselves once we agree to let go and try to work
together instead of fighting as adversaries.

it never comes out quite the way you envision or predict, but ironically the opposite sometimes.
the last to get it is sometimes the first, and the first is sometimes last
sometimes the person you least expect is the one who leads the way,
and the one you most relied on falls flat. in this way we are made humbled and equalled.

we all have a part to play to help the others. none of us is better or worse than anyone else.
we have equal faults as strengths, so how do we use them to set up teams and work this out?

 

[emilynghiem]

they have an aversion against practical application and verifications ...

.

Hi BreezeWood and Hollie:

So how about the idea of using science to demonstrate spiritual healing
where a pattern or process can be shown and it can be replicated and applied consistently
in keeping with medical therapies and treatments, to facilitate health and healing.

M.D. said he agreed that science should be the focus and not religion if this is going to be done right.
Inevitable asked for evidence if anyone is expected to believe something.
I agree with both.

Are we in agreement to set this up then?