A Thought for Atheists

[Photonic]

It was an incomplete definition of scientific theory.

Not in context, it wasn't.

Why the **** do I have to argue with you about his definition? If you want to discuss your stupidity answer my post to you. If you want to discuss his answer his posts.

You think a scientist would be able to tell the difference.

I'm bowing out of this conversation in respect to your awe inspiring ignorance of the subject matter.

 

[daws101]

Then you have clearly missed the entire premise of my post. I'm sorry. Maybe in the future I will be clearer in my posting.

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

That is the only definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which covers "dark matter" evolution, Relativity, etc. Jesus titty ******* Christ.

wasn't jebus a virgin?

 

[Lokiate]

This wasn't your post.

Your premise was based on me accepting that the only possible definition of theory is the one you put forth. We both know that is not true, so I ignored it.

That is the only definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which covers "dark matter" evolution, Relativity, etc. Jesus titty ******* Christ.

wasn't jebus a virgin?

About as much a virgin as Mary...

 

[Lokiate]

There is actually abundant evidence that God does exist.

I'd like to see some of it, rather than see you talk about it some more.

Soon.

Thanks.

The answer is never satisfactory.

 

[LOki]

There is actually abundant evidence that God does exist.

I'd like to see some of it, rather than see you talk about it some more.

Soon.

Thanks.

The answer is never satisfactory.

Perhaps we'll see. I extend a sincere hope he produces such evidence but, I predict that it's just not forthcoming. He'll talk about it to no really useful end, and he'll wring his hands a great deal about how "unreasonable" I'm being, and wax ad-nauseam on how I'm requiring of him a standard of validation that I don't apply to myself. Which is of course just nonsensical windbaggery; whose purpose is to obfuscate the obvious fact that he's just not producing valid evidence that God does, in fact, exist.

This Quantum Windbag won't produce a single bit of this "abundant evidence" of his, because he knows (now) that any evidence that first requires you to believe that God exists--in order for you to believe it is evidence of God's existence--is not really valid evidence of God's existence at all: it's just a question-begging rationalization for asserting that such "evidence" is evidence of God's existence. It is simply restating his conviction--of his certainty that God exists--that is unfounded in evidence or valid logic.

He knows I won't accept such "evidence" as valid, and he knows that the criteria I'll apply for invalidating such evidence is, actually and demonstrably, valid. So, he'll continue his disingenuous fairy-dance of dodging intellectual integrity until we all decide we prefer rational conversation; at which point he'll declare victory for his faith's stoic capacity to deny objective facts of reality, valid logic, and the beliefs based upon them.

Which, of course, makes him clown-shoes and all the more reason to start making fun of him right now; before we're bored to death.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Your beliefs aren't important to you?

You want proof that there is a God, but you do not want proof that evolution is real? Your intellectual dishonesty is showing again. You are the one that proclaimed yourself an atheist, yet you want to wiggle by trying to argue that your 20 significant digits of certainty gives you an open mind, it doesn't. If you actually had an open mind you would accept evidence and actually examine it, just like you do with any scientific theory.

I don't have religious beliefs, so it's hard to answer if that's important to me or not.

There's unlimited proof of evolution, evolution is a fact.

I'm not wiggling, I'm letting you determine based on my views whether you view me as an atheist or agnostic. Couldn't care less which title is placed on me.

It takes a closed mind to deny evolution, as you have to deny an ever-growing list of scientific facts. Doesn't take even the slightest notion of having a closed mind to deny there's proof of a god, because there is no proof of one.

I do not label people, I let them label themselves. I do, however, point out inconsistencies in their positions, and do resort to calling people close minded when they refuse to accept the truth.

You again demonstrate your closed mind. You accept as fat that evolution is true despite the absolute fact that it has not been proved, and you then attempt to claim that, because there is no proof that God exists, this proves He does not. You should stop reading Dawkins, he is obviously confusing you about what the word proof means.

Proof is the result of logic and is a rational conclusion based on the evidence presented. People have focused on laying out the evidence in a manner that any reasonable person would conclude that evolution is true. That proof is a conclusion that each person must, individually, accept. Either that, or they can simply conclude they are too lazy to examine the evidence themselves and make a judgement based on bias. The latter is the method most people choose, which is why so few people that believe in evolution can defend that belief. That turns evolution from science to faith for those people.

There is actually abundant evidence that God does exist. Laying it all out would take at least as long as laying out a solid argument in favor of evolution, and, as such, is way beyond the ability of anyone I have ever met. The same actually goes for evolution, by the way. Even Dawkins, who has devoted his life to using evolution to debunk god, cannot actually lay out a complete and cohesive defense of evolution. Dawkins has actually lost debates about evolution to a Rabbi who actually believes evolution is real. (Dawkins, of course, denies that the debates ever took place.)

That does not make evolution not true, any more than a person being unable to lay out a complete and cohesive defense of the existence of God proves God does not exist. You refusal to accept anything but proof of the existence of God makes you just as close minded as those who refuse to accept anything less than proof for evolution.

There was no inconsistency.

I do want proof evolution is real. Evolution is a fact. There's evolution and the theory of evolution, just like there's gravity and the theory of gravity. Both gravity and evolution are facts, it's a fact they happen.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll need a link of Dawkins losing such a debate, all I've ever seen him do is shred people who deny evolution. I'm not propping that up as some big accomplishment, as it's not that difficult, just look at all YWC's threads.

And no offense, but when people offer up things like the Christmas Truce as evidence of God and try to equate that to all the facts as evidence of evolution, it just appears downright silly.

 

[Lokiate]

I'd like to see some of it, rather than see you talk about it some more.

Soon.

Thanks.

The answer is never satisfactory.

Perhaps we'll see. I extend a sincere hope he produces such evidence but, I predict that it's just not forthcoming. He'll talk about it to no really useful end, and he'll wring his hands a great deal about how "unreasonable" I'm being, and wax ad-nauseam on how I'm requiring of him a standard of validation that I don't apply to myself. Which is of course just nonsensical windbaggery; whose purpose is to obfuscate the obvious fact that he's just not producing valid evidence that God does, in fact, exist.

This Quantum Windbag won't produce a single bit of this "abundant evidence" of his, because he knows (now) that any evidence that first requires you to believe that God exists--in order for you to believe it is evidence of God's existence--is not really valid evidence of God's existence at all: it's just a question-begging rationalization for asserting that such "evidence" is evidence of God's existence. It is simply restating his conviction--of his certainty that God exists--that is unfounded in evidence or valid logic.

He knows I won't accept such "evidence" as valid, and he knows that the criteria I'll apply for invalidating such evidence is, actually and demonstrably, valid. So, he'll continue his disingenuous fairy-dance of dodging intellectual integrity until we all decide we prefer rational conversation; at which point he'll declare victory for his faith's stoic capacity to deny objective facts of reality, valid logic, and the beliefs based upon them.

Which, of course, makes him clown-shoes and all the more reason to start making fun of him right now; before we're bored to death.

That's been my experience with such claims of "evidence proving the existence of god" for eleventy-nine years. They provide nothing but personally interpreted circumstantial findings, and manipulations, then get pissed off that the 'proof' they present is dismissed, as any equally flimsy findings would, using the scientific method.

Then, when all hope is lost in proving their god, they attack the opponent, and search for any hint of hypocrisy, or any lack of knowledge in an area to show that the atheist has "faith", which somehow invalidates all claims of the atheist. When that fails, it's back to claims of "undeniable proof", followed by ducking, weaving, or just waiting for the page count to stack up so they can move on to another atheist to pester with the same bullshit, after the original opponent(s) got bored and left.

Personally, I got beliefs, I don't think all we see is all we get, but I don't parade it as fact, because it's nothing more than my personal opinion based on my personal life experiences, and completely subject to my own personal bias. <- Not a factual basis. Most internet theists refuse to apply this level of awareness.

 

[amrchaos]

Funniest thing I ever heard an Atheist say was "I swear to God that I am an Atheist."

How about "God Bless you", "May god bless you" or just "Bless you"?

I tend to do that alot. I think the moralist have brained-washed me into "Monotheistic Courtesy"

But what else can I say?

"May you not take this into the wrong way for I am not a believer in any type of All powerful sentient beings that many mono and polytheists call God(although I am open to the idea of "god" being a philosophical concept concerning how an individual such as yourself or I should live our lives) but I do wish to expess my concern and extend a hope that you are not coming down with a cold and/or get well soon by saying "May God Bless" to you"

I mean really, that is just too much information for a person that sneezes or coughs. Also--is not the above a run-on sentence??


See how we non-believers are oppressed? We are subtly brain-washed into "believers compliance" by an overjoyous, Bible-thumping, God-fearing majority through the use of easy phrases that include or imply "GOD". We nonbelievers need our own phrases and sayings that express our non-belief or else we shall fall to the tide of religious propaganda that has innudated this great secular society!

By the way--"cover your damn mouth" does not cut!!

 

[Montrovant]

Funniest thing I ever heard an Atheist say was "I swear to God that I am an Atheist."

How about "God Bless you", "May god bless you" or just "Bless you"?

I tend to do that alot. I think the moralist have brained-washed me into "Monotheistic Courtesy"

But what else can I say?

"May you not take this into the wrong way for I am not a believer in any type of All powerful sentient beings that many mono and polytheists call God(although I am open to the idea of "god" being a philosophical concept concerning how an individual such as yourself or I should live our lives) but I do wish to expess my concern and extend a hope that you are not coming down with a cold and/or get well soon by saying "May God Bless" to you"

I mean really, that is just too much information for a person that sneezes or coughs. Also--is not the above a run-on sentence??


See how we non-believers are oppressed? We are subtly brain-washed into "believers compliance" by an overjoyous, Bible-thumping, God-fearing majority through the use of easy phrases that include or imply "GOD". We nonbelievers need our own phrases and sayings that express our non-belief or else we shall fall to the tide of religious propaganda that has innudated this great secular society!

By the way--"cover your damn mouth" does not cut!!

I only say bless you around the 2 year old I help take care of, because her parents want her to learn it. Otherwise when someone sneezes I do nothing. I've always considered it a bit odd, actually; with other audible bodily functions, the person it comes from is expected to say excuse me or something to that effect (burping, farting) but with a sneeze, it's the people around that hear it that are expected to say something. If you are the one sneezing, it should fall on you to apologize, not me to commiserate!

 

[Photonic]

Funniest thing I ever heard an Atheist say was "I swear to God that I am an Atheist."

How about "God Bless you", "May god bless you" or just "Bless you"?

I tend to do that alot. I think the moralist have brained-washed me into "Monotheistic Courtesy"

But what else can I say?

"May you not take this into the wrong way for I am not a believer in any type of All powerful sentient beings that many mono and polytheists call God(although I am open to the idea of "god" being a philosophical concept concerning how an individual such as yourself or I should live our lives) but I do wish to expess my concern and extend a hope that you are not coming down with a cold and/or get well soon by saying "May God Bless" to you"

I mean really, that is just too much information for a person that sneezes or coughs. Also--is not the above a run-on sentence??


See how we non-believers are oppressed? We are subtly brain-washed into "believers compliance" by an overjoyous, Bible-thumping, God-fearing majority through the use of easy phrases that include or imply "GOD". We nonbelievers need our own phrases and sayings that express our non-belief or else we shall fall to the tide of religious propaganda that has innudated this great secular society!

By the way--"cover your damn mouth" does not cut!!

I just say "excuse you."

It works, try it.

 

[daws101]

Funniest thing I ever heard an Atheist say was "I swear to God that I am an Atheist."

How about "God Bless you", "May god bless you" or just "Bless you"?

I tend to do that alot. I think the moralist have brained-washed me into "Monotheistic Courtesy"

But what else can I say?

"May you not take this into the wrong way for I am not a believer in any type of All powerful sentient beings that many mono and polytheists call God(although I am open to the idea of "god" being a philosophical concept concerning how an individual such as yourself or I should live our lives) but I do wish to expess my concern and extend a hope that you are not coming down with a cold and/or get well soon by saying "May God Bless" to you"

I mean really, that is just too much information for a person that sneezes or coughs. Also--is not the above a run-on sentence??


See how we non-believers are oppressed? We are subtly brain-washed into "believers compliance" by an overjoyous, Bible-thumping, God-fearing majority through the use of easy phrases that include or imply "GOD". We nonbelievers need our own phrases and sayings that express our non-belief or else we shall fall to the tide of religious propaganda that has innudated this great secular society!

By the way--"cover your damn mouth" does not cut!!

I just say "excuse you."

It works, try it.

I ask "are you finished yet? "