Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[rightwinger]

Here's a suggestion: why don't the theists leave the non-theists alone? The non-theists do not seem to be running around trying to cause trouble, but the theists are constantly harping on them and babbling at them. The theists seem to want to drive people to atheism.

I just posted a bit of satire about, among other things, educational tyranny, which most atheists think is perfectly just.

Tyranny?
Shirley you jest

 

[Ringtone]

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Precisely! For example, examine what rightwing wrote in response to your post:

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What does any of this mean? It's gibberish, almost as incoherent and meaningless as BreezeWood's typical meanderings.

What is them? Credible evidence for what exactly? Define evidence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What does any of this mean? I

It means your magical ideas are unevidenced and without credibility. Duh.

 

[rightwinger]

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Precisely! For example, examine what rightwing wrote in response to your post:

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What does any of this mean? It's gibberish, almost as incoherent and meaningless as BreezeWood's typical meanderings.

What is them? Credible evidence for what exactly? Define evidence?

What is gibberish?

Seems straightforward
If you have a theory that a God exists, you need evidence to prove your theory.

 

[Ringtone]

I am tempted to say to people who act as though religious/non-religious thought is a competition "die and find out." They are dealing in an area of human thought that has no right answers.

Behold an absolute assertion made by someone who has obviously never seriously regarded the problem of existence from first principles.

 

[Ringtone]

What is gibberish?

Seems straightforward
If you have a theory that a God exists, you need evidence to prove your theory.

Are you insinuating that there is no evidence for God's existence?

 

[badger2]

'Theology should not be left to the theists.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism)

 

[Ringtone]

Tyranny?
Shirley you jest

Are you actually trying to engage me in a serious discussion on the imperatives of the First Amendment, rightwinger? I've never seen you lift a thought heavier than a mindless slogan off the ground. I don't think you're up to it.

From the OP:

“Is that why humanists exclusively impose their ideology on us in the state schools and say that the teaching of the theological perspective and an open-ended, methodological naturalism for science in the same are unconstitutional?” Dick wondered.

“Yes, Dick,” Spot sighed. "I’m afraid so. You see, children, the way the principle of the separation of church and state works according to the humanist’s ‘logic’, Christians don’t have any inalienable rights in the state schools. The public education system is the humanist’s church and humanism is it’s religion.“​

You do understand that institutions of education do not and cannot exist in ideological vacuums, don't you?

Here's a novel idea for ya, lefty: the variously disparate, religious and philosophical views of the people are not unconstitutional!

Isn't that a daisy?

In the series of decisions of the 50s and 60s that saddled us with an education system that turns out dumbed-down socialists and sexual degenerates, the leftist Warren Court failed to declare the only constitutional remedy that would have satisfied the imperatives of the First Amendment for all: either the public education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or a public education system without universal school choice is unconstitutional.

One size does not and cannot fit all.

 

[ding]

.

And yet the benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith.

faith without accomplishing its objective is no different than no faith at all, giving christians their fraudulent self rewarding dogmas they impose on others the results of which they have not accomplished themselves. ringtone. the interpretive false christian messiah.

as faith to land on the moon can be accomplished in script before the event the false religions have not accomplished in their script the same results. faith in evolution, ToE has.

No. Faith without accomplishing its objective is not no different than no faith.

What kind of stupid logic are you employing?

Did you not read what I wrote?

The benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. Even Darwin agrees with this statement.

You don’t strike me as someone who has faith.

 

[ding]

Here's a suggestion: why don't the theists leave the non-theists alone? The non-theists do not seem to be running around trying to cause trouble, but the theists are constantly harping on them and babbling at them. The theists seem to want to drive people to atheism.

Read this religion board

You don’t see many threads from atheists attacking religion as wrong
What you see are religious nuts attacking atheism

Seems they are insecure in their beliefs

I am tempted to say to people who act as though religious/non-religious thought is a competition "die and find out." They are dealing in an area of human thought that has no right answers.

And yet the benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. So much so that it is illogical to have no faith.

Sometimes faith does outweigh the benefits of no faith, sometimes not. Depends on how one approaches faith and it very much depends on the content of that faith. I can only speak about Christianity because I am not so familiar with other faiths. Christianity has been so crapped up with garbage like popes, grahams, jeffresses, and the rest of the barking boys throughout history carrying on and trying to tell everybody what it's all about, as if they know, that the only thing that a person can do is strip it down to bare essentials and start again, consider spiritual thoughts that originate among other Christians and other non-Christian peoples the world over, or become an atheist.

Why even involve religion in this question?

Faith in God is what we are talking about.

The benefits of faith in God far outweighs the benefits of no faith in God.

But to your point religions being comprised of imperfect humans should not expect imperfect humans to be perfect. Too often people throw the baby out with the bath water when all they had to do was drain the dirty water.

At the heart of all religions is faith in God. Having faith in God is far superior to having no faith in God.

 

[ding]

mockery

of course.

like trump,like trumpette....


the shit doesn't fall far from the donkeys ass


I no longer expect any conservative to behave with any decency or civility.

Now if you could only muster up the courage to produce a civil counterargument without all the womanish drama, actually attempt to give a coherent account as to how an actual infinity were possible, explain why an infinite regress of causality or the notion of existence arising from nonexistence weren't absurd. If only you could tell us from whence the idea of God comes, indeed, define the idea of God without necessarily conceding precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. . . .

crickets chirping

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What ******* evidence are you expecting to find of the supernatural?

What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it. Why are you rationalizing your decision?

 

[ding]

Here's a suggestion: why don't the theists leave the non-theists alone? The non-theists do not seem to be running around trying to cause trouble, but the theists are constantly harping on them and babbling at them. The theists seem to want to drive people to atheism.

Read this religion board

You don’t see many threads from atheists attacking religion as wrong
What you see are religious nuts attacking atheism

Seems they are insecure in their beliefs

I am tempted to say to people who act as though religious/non-religious thought is a competition "die and find out." They are dealing in an area of human thought that has no right answers.

And yet the benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. So much so that it is illogical to have no faith.

That is not logical

If believing something is true that is not, has benefits, it does not make it true

Even Darwin recognizes the functional advantage faith has over no faith. If faith in God had no functional advantage, according to natural selection it would have died out long ago.

 

[ding]

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Precisely! For example, examine what rightwing wrote in response to your post:

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What does any of this mean? It's gibberish, almost as incoherent and meaningless as BreezeWood's typical meanderings.

What is them? Credible evidence for what exactly? Define evidence?

The worst part of it is that RW rationalizes his choice by blaming God for not giving him enough evidence for his existence.

Like, I would have believed in you if you had given me more proof.

That sounds like Adam did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me.

 

[anynameyouwish]

mockery

of course.

like trump,like trumpette....


the shit doesn't fall far from the donkeys ass


I no longer expect any conservative to behave with any decency or civility.

Now if you could only muster up the courage to produce a civil counterargument without all the womanish drama, actually attempt to give a coherent account as to how an actual infinity were possible, explain why an infinite regress of causality or the notion of existence arising from nonexistence weren't absurd. If only you could tell us from whence the idea of God comes, indeed, define the idea of God without necessarily conceding precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. . . .

crickets chirping

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What ******* evidence are you expecting to find of the supernatural?

What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it. Why are you rationalizing your decision?

"What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it."

I can't speak for my friend rightwinger but for me it is not a matter of WANT...

I just DON'T!

 

[ding]

mockery

of course.

like trump,like trumpette....


the shit doesn't fall far from the donkeys ass


I no longer expect any conservative to behave with any decency or civility.

Now if you could only muster up the courage to produce a civil counterargument without all the womanish drama, actually attempt to give a coherent account as to how an actual infinity were possible, explain why an infinite regress of causality or the notion of existence arising from nonexistence weren't absurd. If only you could tell us from whence the idea of God comes, indeed, define the idea of God without necessarily conceding precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. . . .

crickets chirping

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What ******* evidence are you expecting to find of the supernatural?

What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it. Why are you rationalizing your decision?

"What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it."

I can't speak for my friend rightwinger but for me it is not a matter of WANT...

I just DON'T!

Ok, do you rationalize that you don’t believe in God because God didn’t give you enough proof for his existence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tyranny?
Shirley you jest

Are you actually trying to engage me in a serious discussion on the imperatives of the First Amendment, rightwinger? I've never seen you lift a thought heavier than a mindless slogan off the ground. I don't think you're up to it.

From the OP:

“Is that why humanists exclusively impose their ideology on us in the state schools and say that the teaching of the theological perspective and an open-ended, methodological naturalism for science in the same are unconstitutional?” Dick wondered.

“Yes, Dick,” Spot sighed. "I’m afraid so. You see, children, the way the principle of the separation of church and state works according to the humanist’s ‘logic’, Christians don’t have any inalienable rights in the state schools. The public education system is the humanist’s church and humanism is it’s religion.“​

You do understand that institutions of education do not and cannot exist in ideological vacuums, don't you?

Here's a novel idea for ya, lefty: the variously disparate, religious and philosophical views of the people are not unconstitutional!

Isn't that a daisy?

In the series of decisions of the 50s and 60s that saddled us with an education system that turns out dumbed-down socialists and sexual degenerates, the leftist Warren Court failed to declare the only constitutional remedy that would have satisfied the imperatives of the First Amendment for all: either the public education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or a public education system without universal school choice is unconstitutional.

One size does not and cannot fit all.

Sorry nutball... Keep your
magical horseshit out of science class.

 

[rightwinger]

mockery

of course.

like trump,like trumpette....


the shit doesn't fall far from the donkeys ass


I no longer expect any conservative to behave with any decency or civility.

Now if you could only muster up the courage to produce a civil counterargument without all the womanish drama, actually attempt to give a coherent account as to how an actual infinity were possible, explain why an infinite regress of causality or the notion of existence arising from nonexistence weren't absurd. If only you could tell us from whence the idea of God comes, indeed, define the idea of God without necessarily conceding precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. . . .

crickets chirping

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What ******* evidence are you expecting to find of the supernatural?

What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it. Why are you rationalizing your decision?

"What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it."

I can't speak for my friend rightwinger but for me it is not a matter of WANT...

I just DON'T!

I’d like to believe in God

I just don’t.

 

[rightwinger]

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Precisely! For example, examine what rightwing wrote in response to your post:

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What does any of this mean? It's gibberish, almost as incoherent and meaningless as BreezeWood's typical meanderings.

What is them? Credible evidence for what exactly? Define evidence?

The worst part of it is that RW rationalizes his choice by blaming God for not giving him enough evidence for his existence.

Like, I would have believed in you if you had given me more proof.

That sounds like Adam did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me.

I don’t blame God

I have just heard all the rationalizations for his existence and they just don’t convince me....not even close

 

[ding]

Now if you could only muster up the courage to produce a civil counterargument without all the womanish drama, actually attempt to give a coherent account as to how an actual infinity were possible, explain why an infinite regress of causality or the notion of existence arising from nonexistence weren't absurd. If only you could tell us from whence the idea of God comes, indeed, define the idea of God without necessarily conceding precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. . . .

crickets chirping

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What ******* evidence are you expecting to find of the supernatural?

What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it. Why are you rationalizing your decision?

"What’s wrong with saying you don’t want to believe in God and be done with it."

I can't speak for my friend rightwinger but for me it is not a matter of WANT...

I just DON'T!

I’d like to believe in God

I just don’t.

No offense but I don’t believe you are being honest with yourself.

 

[ding]

Atheism is an intellectual dead end.

It literally condemns any evaluation into the origin questions and leads to a permanent state of ignorance.

Anything which quashes investigations can’t be good.

Precisely! For example, examine what rightwing wrote in response to your post:

Doesn’t squash them
Just doesn’t find them credible without evidence

What does any of this mean? It's gibberish, almost as incoherent and meaningless as BreezeWood's typical meanderings.

What is them? Credible evidence for what exactly? Define evidence?

The worst part of it is that RW rationalizes his choice by blaming God for not giving him enough evidence for his existence.

Like, I would have believed in you if you had given me more proof.

That sounds like Adam did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me.

I don’t blame God

I have just heard all the rationalizations for his existence and they just don’t convince me....not even close

So you’ve considered the possibility that mind rather being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time is the source or matrix of physical stuff such that mind created the physical world such that beings that know and create could exist?