How did the Universe get here?

[Boss]

I wish your side had whythereisagod.com site I could go to but their isn't.

Well, I don't have a "side" because I am a rogue spiritualist, remember?

Still... I did find this and had to lol...

Reasons God Exists

Hey, remember when I lash out it's just out of frustration.

The other day after arguing with gay haters about how IT TAKES ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN to make a person and then it dawned on me. Are you guys out of your minds to think that there is just one god alone by himself? Don't you think god would have a wife? Even god said it isn't natural to be alone. I think in the new religion you religious people are clearly going to form after the christianity, jew and muslim religions die (just like the 999 others did that came before) I think the new religion you invent should have 2 gods a mother and father.

I don't know, does electricity have a wife? Did gravity and energy **** and make electricity? I wonder if gravity was on top?

What you are doing is again displacing God as a physical being when God is spiritual energy. When you and someone you like have similar thoughts, do they **** and get married? Have little baby thoughts? OR maybe the have thought abortions?
Enlighten us on this, will ya?

 

[sealybobo]

Well, I don't have a "side" because I am a rogue spiritualist, remember?

Still... I did find this and had to lol...

Reasons God Exists

Hey, remember when I lash out it's just out of frustration.

The other day after arguing with gay haters about how IT TAKES ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN to make a person and then it dawned on me. Are you guys out of your minds to think that there is just one god alone by himself? Don't you think god would have a wife? Even god said it isn't natural to be alone. I think in the new religion you religious people are clearly going to form after the christianity, jew and muslim religions die (just like the 999 others did that came before) I think the new religion you invent should have 2 gods a mother and father.

I don't know, does electricity have a wife? Did gravity and energy **** and make electricity? I wonder if gravity was on top?

What you are doing is again displacing God as a physical being when God is spiritual energy. When you and someone you like have similar thoughts, do they **** and get married? Have little baby thoughts? OR maybe the have thought abortions?
Enlighten us on this, will ya?

But your definition of god isn't what anyone else thinks god is. And really isn't this just wild speculation? Can you provide me with links of anyone else that agrees with you or is this something we just have to take your word on?

We all understand that our thoughts or mind isn't physical. But how does that prove a god exists? Help me boss!!! And really, does it even matter if I believe god exists? Please answer every question.

Did this thing you are talking about intelligently design us? Does it care about you? Is there a heaven and hell?

 

[sealybobo]

Other animals besides humans have conscienceness and therefore they too have a conscience. A conscience is an emotion that we feel when we have done something wrong. There is no evidence of any connection to your imaginary God involved since people who don't believe in your imaginary God also feel bad when they do something wrong.

Woop there it is. Now they'll tell us we really deep down do believe but it is Satan that makes us deny god. But then they would have to believe the Adam & Eve, Noah, Moses stories too and 7 out of 10 christians know those are just stories. How long until they put 2 and 2 together and realize the jesus story is just a story too?

I don't think Satan makes you deny God.....I simply think you're one of those who only needs Satan to dangle a cheese curl in front of you and you jump at the chance to deny God....what else could explain the things that no rational person would believe, yet you've repeated them in post after post......

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

 

[Montrovant]

Emily, I can appreciate your efforts and I admire what you are trying to do. It's inspirational to see you are so passionate about helping us all reach consensus and harmony. However, I think you misinterpret the intentions of many in this thread and on this forum. They are not interested in reaching consensus or finding harmony. It is the furthest thing from their minds, which explains why you're getting such little response.

So I think you have to start by understanding this. Until you can convince these people to lay down their swords and stop fighting their crusades against Christ and God, you will get nowhere. And the thing about that is, the only way you will ever convince them to do this is by showing them how your approach will defeat Christ and God. Otherwise, they are just not interested.

1. I arrived at the opposite conclusion when I asked some of these same people.
Why are you more concerned about what they believe is possible? If you believe it is possible, as I do, to form consensus by aligning point, why not just prove it by demonstration?

2. My point is that as long as we forgive our differences, we can reconcile despite them.
Are you okay with that? Do you find that to be generally true and demonstratable?

3. As for "defeating Christ and God" isn't the point to "END religious abuse" of any sort?
So if by aligning our concepts, where it does not rely on converting people's beliefs,
wouldn't that achieve the goal of preventing the cause or need of any such abuses?

To the Christian believer, this satisfies what they believe in establishing one truth.
To the nontheists, this shows they do not need to be converted or changed for
truth to be established, but their approach to science is equally valid and needed for them to participate, equally as other people use their religions.

Are you okay with approaching the process this way, in order to demonstrate how consensus can be reached without "focusing on changing other people."

Do you recognize you are "focusing on changing other people" which is the reason
they object? If it is more clear you are equally focused on expanding your own perception, as you interact with others, that is not seen as anything to reject.

My impression is that you Montrovant and Derideo Teo are broader minded than that, and have more than enough potential to work through existing biases we each have.

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] if you don't want them to underestimate you and sell you short, why underestimate them? Even if what we thought was the focus of the process ends up being something else greater, what's wrong with that, why not go with the flow and try it?

Again... I appreciate what you are trying to do. I think it's a wonderful idea and there are indeed many people from various spectrums who would be more than willing to participate in an honest discussion like this. I just don't think there are many of them here. I think you are fishing in the wrong pond.

Most of the "non-theists" in this thread are God-haters, not Atheists. A legitimate Atheist might be inclined to reason and participate in earnest with such a proposal. I know of several who would, but they are not here in this thread. I don't think I am underestimating them, I've been reading their posts for a long time, I know their agenda. They are here to denigrate, ridicule, insult and tear down human spiritualism in all it's forms. That's really all they are interested in. If your proposal provides a means to that end, they will gladly agree to participate.

You don't need to ask me "what's wrong with it" or "why not try it?" I am all on board with what you're doing and think it's a great idea. I say, prove me wrong! Organize these people in some kind of coherent group that finds universal understanding and common ground! Make the world a better place, I'm all for that! I just have a lot of skepticism because I know most of them are not interested in putting forth any kind of honest effort to resolve differences with those who believe in a God.

And yet, less than 2 hours after posting this, you're calling someone dicklips. Which is just one example of the many times you have tossed insults around at non-theists, often, perhaps usually, before any insults have been leveled at you. You've also denied complaining about insults from others, yet that's exactly what you seem to be doing here.

I guess insults and ridicule are only a problem when they are directed towards the spiritual?

 

[Montrovant]

Irrational thing #1: That chemicals and elements somehow defied biogenesis and originated life.

Irrational thing #2: That all life evolved from a single cell organism.

Irrational thing #3: That science has any evidence that God does not exist.

Believers claim the victim and imply that non-theists gang up on them, or rally against them. No, atheists just look at believers the same way they might look at someone who claims the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the centre of the universe: delusional.

The bar theists set for perceived atheist hostility appears to be anyone simply voicing a dissenting opinion or mentioning an inclination towards non-belief. Claiming ‘persecution’ is simply a deflection for theists who are unwilling or unable to deal with open criticism.

Woah, take it easy there dicklips, I was just answering your question about what irrational things you believe in. No need to blow a gasket. BTW.. I take offense to being called a "theist" when I am certainly NOT one. I do not have a theistic view of God, I believe God is greater than any man-made theistic incarnation. So call me a spiritualist, not a theist!

A theist does not have to believe in any religion or 'man-made theistic incarnation' as you put it. A person who believes in a god, any god, is a theist, just as anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist.

 

[sealybobo]

1. I arrived at the opposite conclusion when I asked some of these same people.
Why are you more concerned about what they believe is possible? If you believe it is possible, as I do, to form consensus by aligning point, why not just prove it by demonstration?

2. My point is that as long as we forgive our differences, we can reconcile despite them.
Are you okay with that? Do you find that to be generally true and demonstratable?

3. As for "defeating Christ and God" isn't the point to "END religious abuse" of any sort?
So if by aligning our concepts, where it does not rely on converting people's beliefs,
wouldn't that achieve the goal of preventing the cause or need of any such abuses?

To the Christian believer, this satisfies what they believe in establishing one truth.
To the nontheists, this shows they do not need to be converted or changed for
truth to be established, but their approach to science is equally valid and needed for them to participate, equally as other people use their religions.

Are you okay with approaching the process this way, in order to demonstrate how consensus can be reached without "focusing on changing other people."

Do you recognize you are "focusing on changing other people" which is the reason
they object? If it is more clear you are equally focused on expanding your own perception, as you interact with others, that is not seen as anything to reject.

My impression is that you Montrovant and Derideo Teo are broader minded than that, and have more than enough potential to work through existing biases we each have.

[MENTION=36773]Boss[/MENTION] if you don't want them to underestimate you and sell you short, why underestimate them? Even if what we thought was the focus of the process ends up being something else greater, what's wrong with that, why not go with the flow and try it?

Again... I appreciate what you are trying to do. I think it's a wonderful idea and there are indeed many people from various spectrums who would be more than willing to participate in an honest discussion like this. I just don't think there are many of them here. I think you are fishing in the wrong pond.

Most of the "non-theists" in this thread are God-haters, not Atheists. A legitimate Atheist might be inclined to reason and participate in earnest with such a proposal. I know of several who would, but they are not here in this thread. I don't think I am underestimating them, I've been reading their posts for a long time, I know their agenda. They are here to denigrate, ridicule, insult and tear down human spiritualism in all it's forms. That's really all they are interested in. If your proposal provides a means to that end, they will gladly agree to participate.

You don't need to ask me "what's wrong with it" or "why not try it?" I am all on board with what you're doing and think it's a great idea. I say, prove me wrong! Organize these people in some kind of coherent group that finds universal understanding and common ground! Make the world a better place, I'm all for that! I just have a lot of skepticism because I know most of them are not interested in putting forth any kind of honest effort to resolve differences with those who believe in a God.

And yet, less than 2 hours after posting this, you're calling someone dicklips. Which is just one example of the many times you have tossed insults around at non-theists, often, perhaps usually, before any insults have been leveled at you. You've also denied complaining about insults from others, yet that's exactly what you seem to be doing here.

I guess insults and ridicule are only a problem when they are directed towards the spiritual?

To be honest I started the name calling but his original premise was insulting.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive OR RUDE; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince gay children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.

 

[sealybobo]

GOD SAYS YOU HAVE PROOF,you have the entire universe and life as proof, what kind of fool needs more proof??!!!====For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:18-22

You know how born agains say any christians who were baptized at birth need to do it again when they are adults?

I saw this and thought of you: “Those people aren’t really christians” is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. If all the Christians who have called other Christians ‘not really a Christian’ were to vanish, there’d be no Christians left.

 

[Boss]

Irrational thing #1: That chemicals and elements somehow defied biogenesis and originated life.

Irrational thing #2: That all life evolved from a single cell organism.

Irrational thing #3: That science has any evidence that God does not exist.

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

Anyone can put their name on a piece of paper and call it a study. They can "suggest" anything they please and say it "seems to confirm" whatever they like. Where is the evidence so we can evaluate it objectively? Where is the peer reviewed science to confirm this finding? Oh wait... it's NOT a finding... it's a speculation... an opinion... a subjective guess! And I am willing to bet it comes from someone who does not believe in God.

And Science does not have "evidence" god doesn't exist. I've told you a million times, it isn't our responsibility to prove to you your invisible friend isn't real and if you look at all the facts rationally and logically there is a very slim chance "god" as you guys call it/him exists.

NO EVIDENCE? NONE? REALLY? Well let's "look at all the facts" here... you have ZERO evidence! That's all the facts! There is nothing else to rationally look at with regard to the facts. That's it, there is only this one fact, you don't have ANY evidence. NONE!

Now YOU have completely re defined what god is. We don't even know what you believe to be honest. Did this thing create the universe? Did he intelligently and purposely create human's and all the other animals? Did he do the Noah flood? Is there a heaven? You have COMPLETELY cherry picked what you do and don't believe.

I've been very forthcoming about what I believe. God is Spiritual Nature or a Spiritual Energy. It doesn't have humanistic attributes, it's not physical and has no human emotions. It's like electricity and gravity, except instead of being a physical force, it is a spiritual one. God created the universe and all the life in it, along with all the laws of physics and mathematics, principles of nature and whatnot. I have stated that I don't know if "intelligent" is the appropriate word to apply to God. We may not have a word to define the aspect.

We are spiritually connected to God, so I assume God has some "purpose" for that. It seems we are inclined to do things that are "good" as opposed to "evil" so there is a clear direction or path God seems to be inclined toward. I don't know if there is heaven and hell, I personally believe our spirit or soul will continue to exist after our physical body dies, and perhaps it goes into another dimension dependent upon how it performs in this physical life? Not sure about that, also not sure about floods and things in the Bible.

And to be honest boss, all you have is wild speculation.

Well no, to be honest, that is what YOU have, because you don't have evidence. I have a spiritual connection with God and realize it in my life. It's not speculative at all, it's very real.

Here is your proof god exists.

1. We made it up when we were barely smarter than monkey's 100.000 years ago.
2. You have a mind that can think spiritually. Not a physical brain but a non physical mind and soul.

Okay #1 is YOUR theory, which you have no evidence to support. It's a wild speculation. If it were true, you could show me when humans invented spirituality, but you can't.

#2, you are correct. Humans have minds that can think spiritually. Humans have been thinking spiritually for as long as they have existed.

That is all you have.

Nope. I also have my personal spiritual connection to God.

So you are a look into the future. When retarded christians and muslims no longer exist, we're still going to be debating assholes like you for another 1000 years because every time we debunk one god, you guys just keep moving the goal post. And since there is no way to disprove your little ******* fairytale, I guess you win.

There are more Christians and Muslims today than yesterday, and there will be more tomorrow than today. So for now, you are moving in the wrong direction. The real problem is the 88% of humans who are spiritual and always have been. That number isn't changing at all. Only about 12% of humans are non-spiritual, and most of them are uncertain. So yeah, I would say you'll be debating assholes like me for at least 1000 years or more. Perhaps by then you can come up with some evidence to support your wild speculations of disbelief?

Yes, I know you are a rogue spiritualist. You are because all the organized religions are lies and you know it. So, you just moved the goal post to a place where it is impossible for us to score a touchdown like we have against the muslims, christians & jews and mormons. We know 100% those are lies not real. Right? Even you know those can't possibly be true/real. They made all that shit up about god. That's why you aren't a member of any of them. So you agree with me on that at least.

Nope. Sorry, I don't agree with you there either. I don't personally believe in organized religions but I have no way of knowing if they are right or wrong. I only believe in the God I personally connect with, and that God has not compelled me to join any religion so far.

And so you don't even have a story. All you have are hunches and theories.

No... as you've admitted, that is YOU who has no evidence, only hunches and theories. I have all the evidence I need, I connect with God daily.

If you took your evidence to the bookies in Vegas they'd give you less than 100 to 1 odds. Based on the evidence you have of course. Now maybe if some new evidence were to come around, maybe that would better your odds but based on what you are telling us, no. So please

LMAO... What if I took the evidence you admit doesn't exist to the bookies?

Guess it's a good thing I would never bet on wild speculations!

 

[sealybobo]

Irrational thing #1: That chemicals and elements somehow defied biogenesis and originated life.

Irrational thing #2: That all life evolved from a single cell organism.

Irrational thing #3: That science has any evidence that God does not exist.

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

Anyone can put their name on a piece of paper and call it a study. They can "suggest" anything they please and say it "seems to confirm" whatever they like. Where is the evidence so we can evaluate it objectively? Where is the peer reviewed science to confirm this finding? Oh wait... it's NOT a finding... it's a speculation... an opinion... a subjective guess! And I am willing to bet it comes from someone who does not believe in God.



NO EVIDENCE? NONE? REALLY? Well let's "look at all the facts" here... you have ZERO evidence! That's all the facts! There is nothing else to rationally look at with regard to the facts. That's it, there is only this one fact, you don't have ANY evidence. NONE!



I've been very forthcoming about what I believe. God is Spiritual Nature or a Spiritual Energy. It doesn't have humanistic attributes, it's not physical and has no human emotions. It's like electricity and gravity, except instead of being a physical force, it is a spiritual one. God created the universe and all the life in it, along with all the laws of physics and mathematics, principles of nature and whatnot. I have stated that I don't know if "intelligent" is the appropriate word to apply to God. We may not have a word to define the aspect.

We are spiritually connected to God, so I assume God has some "purpose" for that. It seems we are inclined to do things that are "good" as opposed to "evil" so there is a clear direction or path God seems to be inclined toward. I don't know if there is heaven and hell, I personally believe our spirit or soul will continue to exist after our physical body dies, and perhaps it goes into another dimension dependent upon how it performs in this physical life? Not sure about that, also not sure about floods and things in the Bible.



Well no, to be honest, that is what YOU have, because you don't have evidence. I have a spiritual connection with God and realize it in my life. It's not speculative at all, it's very real.



Okay #1 is YOUR theory, which you have no evidence to support. It's a wild speculation. If it were true, you could show me when humans invented spirituality, but you can't.

#2, you are correct. Humans have minds that can think spiritually. Humans have been thinking spiritually for as long as they have existed.



Nope. I also have my personal spiritual connection to God.



There are more Christians and Muslims today than yesterday, and there will be more tomorrow than today. So for now, you are moving in the wrong direction. The real problem is the 88% of humans who are spiritual and always have been. That number isn't changing at all. Only about 12% of humans are non-spiritual, and most of them are uncertain. So yeah, I would say you'll be debating assholes like me for at least 1000 years or more. Perhaps by then you can come up with some evidence to support your wild speculations of disbelief?



Nope. Sorry, I don't agree with you there either. I don't personally believe in organized religions but I have no way of knowing if they are right or wrong. I only believe in the God I personally connect with, and that God has not compelled me to join any religion so far.

And so you don't even have a story. All you have are hunches and theories.

No... as you've admitted, that is YOU who has no evidence, only hunches and theories. I have all the evidence I need, I connect with God daily.

If you took your evidence to the bookies in Vegas they'd give you less than 100 to 1 odds. Based on the evidence you have of course. Now maybe if some new evidence were to come around, maybe that would better your odds but based on what you are telling us, no. So please

LMAO... What if I took the evidence you admit doesn't exist to the bookies?

Guess it's a good thing I would never bet on wild speculations!

I'll admit I have absolutely zero evidence that god doesn't exist if you'll admit that you have absolutely zero evidence he does how about that?

And how do you know all this: God is Spiritual Nature or a Spiritual Energy. It doesn't have humanistic attributes, it's not physical and has no human emotions. It's like electricity and gravity, except instead of being a physical force, it is a spiritual one. God created the universe and all the life in it, along with all the laws of physics and mathematics, principles of nature and whatnot. I have stated that I don't know if "intelligent" is the appropriate word to apply to God. We may not have a word to define the aspect."?

P.S. I"m not spiritually connected to god.

 

[sealybobo]

Well I can tell you I THOUGHT I had this spiritual connection with god too until I realized that was just all in my head. I rejected most of what I learned from my society but still clung to the notion that god was real and we had a personal relationship. **** the church I said once I realized they were all corrupt, but god and me were still pals.

And you know what pussies? It took my atheist friend being rude and blunt with me to wake me up. Telling me belief in god is irrational wasn't enough. He had to tell me if I believe in a god then I am stupid. Because as an adult you can not be that smart if you believe the things that you do. And what exactly do you believe? Doesn't matter. You are a cherry picker who despite having no proof of a god, and despite all the facts that are obvious to you because we have presented you with all the information you should need, you still believe some intelligent thing created us.

You know why you believe in god? Because you can't believe there isn't a god. Just because you can't believe it's true doesn't mean it's not.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, I don't have a "side" because I am a rogue spiritualist, remember?

Still... I did find this and had to lol...

Reasons God Exists

Hey, remember when I lash out it's just out of frustration.

The other day after arguing with gay haters about how IT TAKES ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN to make a person and then it dawned on me. Are you guys out of your minds to think that there is just one god alone by himself? Don't you think god would have a wife? Even god said it isn't natural to be alone. I think in the new religion you religious people are clearly going to form after the christianity, jew and muslim religions die (just like the 999 others did that came before) I think the new religion you invent should have 2 gods a mother and father.

I don't know, does electricity have a wife? Did gravity and energy **** and make electricity? I wonder if gravity was on top?

What you are doing is again displacing God as a physical being when God is spiritual energy. When you and someone you like have similar thoughts, do they **** and get married? Have little baby thoughts? OR maybe the have thought abortions?
Enlighten us on this, will ya?

Didn't you say that your version of god may just be one aspect of god? Why couldn't there be another aspect of god which is more human and has a wife, then?

 

[Montrovant]

Again... I appreciate what you are trying to do. I think it's a wonderful idea and there are indeed many people from various spectrums who would be more than willing to participate in an honest discussion like this. I just don't think there are many of them here. I think you are fishing in the wrong pond.

Most of the "non-theists" in this thread are God-haters, not Atheists. A legitimate Atheist might be inclined to reason and participate in earnest with such a proposal. I know of several who would, but they are not here in this thread. I don't think I am underestimating them, I've been reading their posts for a long time, I know their agenda. They are here to denigrate, ridicule, insult and tear down human spiritualism in all it's forms. That's really all they are interested in. If your proposal provides a means to that end, they will gladly agree to participate.

You don't need to ask me "what's wrong with it" or "why not try it?" I am all on board with what you're doing and think it's a great idea. I say, prove me wrong! Organize these people in some kind of coherent group that finds universal understanding and common ground! Make the world a better place, I'm all for that! I just have a lot of skepticism because I know most of them are not interested in putting forth any kind of honest effort to resolve differences with those who believe in a God.

And yet, less than 2 hours after posting this, you're calling someone dicklips. Which is just one example of the many times you have tossed insults around at non-theists, often, perhaps usually, before any insults have been leveled at you. You've also denied complaining about insults from others, yet that's exactly what you seem to be doing here.

I guess insults and ridicule are only a problem when they are directed towards the spiritual?

To be honest I started the name calling but his original premise was insulting.

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive OR RUDE; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince gay children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods. All other possible beliefs and ideologies – including any desire to oppress theism – come from outside atheism. This is in contrast to religious belief, which often includes a set of laws and commandments purportedly derived from a supernatural source about which one can be ‘militant’.

And it was rude of you to be as insulting as you were.

However, I haven't read you complaining or whining about other people insulting or denigrating, whereas Boss has done that on multiple occasions. So while you were rude, it wasn't a hypocritical rudeness.

 

[sealybobo]

A dog thinks "boy I'd like to eat that bone". That thought the dog just had isn't physical either. Right? So is that non physical part of the dogs mind prove a god exists?

Hi [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] I was going to post this link for Boss, on the post about animals
having some emotions and connections similar to people:

Raju The Elephant Cries After Being Rescued Following 50 Years Of Abuse, Chains

but since Boss is having a bad day, being accused of lying and all manner of ill repute,
I will back off and post it here on your reply instead.

I WILL say yes, there are people who report feeling the "emotions and spirit" of trees and animals. So they consider this part of the "collective life energy and consciousness" joining all life in an interconnected web. You can call that some level of God, if you want.

With the above link, to the elephant weeping visible tears upon being rescued, it is up to the people to interpret the feelings/reactions in the elephant. They could be guessing for all we know. They "felt" he "understood" they were there to help him. Who knows if his tears were just pain from stress or removing his shackles.

All this can be interpreted as total physical reactions, chemical changes in the stress level and in the brain. It does not have to be anything spiritual just because some people see it that way.

and we can still agree it is more natural for the elephant to be removed from bondage
and returned to some natural habitat environment. We don't have to believe the elephant was crying and understood being rescued. That's faith based and not necessary.

So you have a problem believing the elephant has the same emotions/thoughts that humans have?

 

[sealybobo]

A dog thinks "boy I'd like to eat that bone". That thought the dog just had isn't physical either. Right? So is that non physical part of the dogs mind prove a god exists?

Hi [MENTION=11281]sealybobo[/MENTION] I was going to post this link for Boss, on the post about animals
having some emotions and connections similar to people:

Raju The Elephant Cries After Being Rescued Following 50 Years Of Abuse, Chains

but since Boss is having a bad day, being accused of lying and all manner of ill repute,
I will back off and post it here on your reply instead.

I WILL say yes, there are people who report feeling the "emotions and spirit" of trees and animals. So they consider this part of the "collective life energy and consciousness" joining all life in an interconnected web. You can call that some level of God, if you want.

With the above link, to the elephant weeping visible tears upon being rescued, it is up to the people to interpret the feelings/reactions in the elephant. They could be guessing for all we know. They "felt" he "understood" they were there to help him. Who knows if his tears were just pain from stress or removing his shackles.

All this can be interpreted as total physical reactions, chemical changes in the stress level and in the brain. It does not have to be anything spiritual just because some people see it that way.

and we can still agree it is more natural for the elephant to be removed from bondage
and returned to some natural habitat environment. We don't have to believe the elephant was crying and understood being rescued. That's faith based and not necessary.

One other thing. Lets see if you can practice what you always preach. Lets not argue if the elephant has a soul or spirit or thoughts like we do. Instead can we just agree to not lock up and torture animals until they cry? Clearly this animal has been tortured for years.

So lets just cut the bullshit. Doesn't matter if there is a god or not. Its not right to torture animals just like you shouldn't torture humans.

Do you know in Switzerland no animal can be caged? Free open range animals is all the eat. Compare that to american slaughter houses.

Oh yea and they are starting to think the loosened regulations on meat inspection here in the USA is what is causing cancer and Alzheimers. We need to throw out god with the bath water and start discussing what is important. If your house is on fire, where is god? If you are being raped or murdered, where is god? If you get cancer, where do you go to church or the hospital? If you get shot who do you call your priest or 911?

 

[BreezeWood]

I connect with God daily.

would such a person be said to have a free will - or an ant colony servicing their queen ?

or -

maybe Boss is living in N Korea ?

.

 

[Boss]

I'll admit I have absolutely zero evidence that god doesn't exist if you'll admit that you have absolutely zero evidence he does how about that?

You've already admitted you have zero evidence that God doesn't exist. I'll be glad to admit that I have no evidence you'll accept that God exists, but I can't say I don't have evidence. I do have evidence. Now if it were the other way around and you had some evidence God didn't exist but I didn't accept your evidence, would you admit you had no evidence?

And how do you know all this: God is Spiritual Nature or a Spiritual Energy. It doesn't have humanistic attributes, it's not physical and has no human emotions. It's like electricity and gravity, except instead of being a physical force, it is a spiritual one. God created the universe and all the life in it, along with all the laws of physics and mathematics, principles of nature and whatnot. I have stated that I don't know if "intelligent" is the appropriate word to apply to God. We may not have a word to define the aspect."?

P.S. I"m not spiritually connected to god.

You made a comment about being unclear as to what I believe, and this is me telling you what I believe. Now, I am human, it's possible for me to be wrong. Could be that God's completely different than what I believe. I know that I connect with God daily. Since this is how I understand and comprehend the thing I connect with daily, it's what I believe.

Even after all I have explained, you still think I am "cherry-picking" but I don't see as that's what I am doing at all. It's not like there is some universally understood incarnation of God and I am picking which things to believe and which to not believe.

 

[Derideo_Te]

did someone argue God was a scientific theory?......when you claim something is a scientic theory, you have to undertake certain requirements of the scientific method...giving supporting evidence is part of that.....

Thank's, Steve.

Stephen Hawking directly refutes the "cyclical universe" theory that was claimed to be "supported by science." I think it's safe to say when the leading physicist of our time disagrees with something, it is clearly NOT supported by science.

Should we assume your "Thank's (sic), Steve" comment was sarcasm, or did you just make a complete and utter fool of your misinformed self?

And there we see Boss lying his ass off again! His own article clearly showed that the "bet" that Hawking had made was not yet completed since all of the data was still pending from the agreed upon source.

This was pointed out to Boss when he first made his fallacious claim but he persists is spewing his canard as if it is somehow supports his religious agenda. Furthermore he injects a completely gratuitous insult.

Dishonesty of this nature is why Boss cannot be trusted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I hate your signature animation. Please remove it.

Go fish - my sig is within the guidelines - GISMYS constant spamming is not.

I think it's sexually obscene, offensive and degrading toward women.
I don't know that it's acceptable under forum rules.

Then why don't you report it?

 

[Boss]

And it was rude of you to be as insulting as you were.

However, I haven't read you complaining or whining about other people insulting or denigrating, whereas Boss has done that on multiple occasions. So while you were rude, it wasn't a hypocritical rudeness.

Let's get something clear, Moonbat... I am not whining or complaining about other people insulting and denigrating others. I fully expect you to do this because that's your objective. My only objective is to express my opinion and share my beliefs with others. Sometimes, my opinion might be that you're an idiot and a dumbass. Therefore, I am going to tell you that, but it's not my objective and that's not my agenda.

Your objective seems to be picking out people you like and dislike, then spending all your time stroking the egos of people you like while finding any way you can to misconstrue and take out of context, what the people you don't like have to say. You're really talented at parsing out little snippets of a conversation and myopically focusing on the nuance, so as to try and embarrass someone. You use the phrase "so what you're saying is..." a lot. Usually it is followed by something you've managed to distill from the conversation that is totally NOT what the other person is saying, and despite their repeated attempts to clarify that, you insist that's what they said.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Irrational thing #1: That chemicals and elements somehow defied biogenesis and originated life.

Irrational thing #2: That all life evolved from a single cell organism.

Irrational thing #3: That science has any evidence that God does not exist.

Irrational that boss endlessly spouts all of that hogwash!