Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[PK1]

Can I use something you have created as evidence?

Boy, is that line getting old!
LOL

Only because it challenges your beliefs. Truth usually hurts before it helps.

What truth are you referring to?

The kind none of your kind wants to hear.

Subjective "truth" [sic] = fantasy.
Also known as wishful thinking, esp when one imagines they have a "relationship" with a "personal" god.

I am not an atheist, but i have not experienced any rational evidence for a theistic position. The teleological argument is naive.

 

[Czernobog]

This silliness has already gone on for too long, but just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be evidence of a creator? I mean something other than a gut feeling.

I agree.

That's a fair question and you seem like you are being genuinely curious about why I believe what I do. The order of the universe. It is incredibly ordered and it does so despite chaos. The evolution of matter to consciousness and how each phase was so similar in its process and how we can see that throughout nature here on earth. The similarity of the cycles in nature and how the saeculm cycle mirrors that. The fact that we prefer good over evil. The fact that virtue is the greatest organizing principle in mankind. The law of compensation that seems to be at work which acts to prune us whether we believe in Him or not. That we are given feedback to know the difference between doing right and doing wrong but rationalizing that we are doing right. The fact that all of the teachings on forgiveness, thankfulness, forgiveness and humility have practical applications that naturally lead to successful outcomes. The fact that dying to self leads one to not have a preference for an outcome or consequence to self and leads to seeing objective reality. These are incredibly powerful behaviors which naturally lead to success in all endeavors, especially relationships. Did you know that it is happiness which leads to success and not the other way around? Happiness turns on all of the learning centers of the brain. But most importantly, I have seen the miracles in my life and those around me when I chose to make this journey. I have come to realize that everything that happened to me that I thought was bad was really good. I can see and feel God's hand guiding me. So whether people believe in Him or not, He does believe in us and He is pruning us all for our own betterment here in this world. The only question is will we recognize it and learn or will we keep playing our self centric movie over and over again in our head. The ball is in your court, brother. You can choose to mock me or accept me as I am. Your call.

I was genuinely curious until I read some of your further posts. It's obvious that your stated beliefs on the efficacy of good and evil, and the concept of selflessness are flowery sounding, but you aren't quite capable of following them yourself. Just like most who claim Christianity, you are lacking the understanding or self control required to apply what you arrogantly demand from others.

I'm not surprised. You only saw my responses in a vacuum because that was what you wanted to see. I guess those other guys were saints, right? I never said I was a saint. We always judge ourselves differently than we judge others, especially others who are not of our tribe. I have no idea where you got the idea that I demanded anything from others.

Now I am curious, which posts did you believe were over the line and why?

You presented yourself as someone who could prove credible evidence of the existence of a creator, and later implied that the things commonly accepted as moral behavior were a directly from that creator. Here is a hint. Next time you want to be a fountain of religious information and the value of morality, don't childishly accuse someone of being gay in the middle of your homily.

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

 

[ding]

Can I use something you have created as evidence?

Boy, is that line getting old!
LOL

Only because it challenges your beliefs. Truth usually hurts before it helps.

What truth are you referring to?

The kind none of your kind wants to hear.

Subjective "truth" [sic] = fantasy.
Also known as wishful thinking, esp when one imagines they have a "relationship" with a "personal" god.

I am not an atheist, but i have not experienced any rational evidence for a theistic position. The teleological argument is naive.

Objective truth = reality

How do you know I don't? Because you don't? We all do, most just don't realize it.

If you are not an atheist and you don't have any rational evidence for a theistic position, does that mean you believe you are an agnostic? Because if that were true would not only limit your argument to those that believe, you would also be arguing against non-belief. By definition an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[ding]

I agree.

That's a fair question and you seem like you are being genuinely curious about why I believe what I do. The order of the universe. It is incredibly ordered and it does so despite chaos. The evolution of matter to consciousness and how each phase was so similar in its process and how we can see that throughout nature here on earth. The similarity of the cycles in nature and how the saeculm cycle mirrors that. The fact that we prefer good over evil. The fact that virtue is the greatest organizing principle in mankind. The law of compensation that seems to be at work which acts to prune us whether we believe in Him or not. That we are given feedback to know the difference between doing right and doing wrong but rationalizing that we are doing right. The fact that all of the teachings on forgiveness, thankfulness, forgiveness and humility have practical applications that naturally lead to successful outcomes. The fact that dying to self leads one to not have a preference for an outcome or consequence to self and leads to seeing objective reality. These are incredibly powerful behaviors which naturally lead to success in all endeavors, especially relationships. Did you know that it is happiness which leads to success and not the other way around? Happiness turns on all of the learning centers of the brain. But most importantly, I have seen the miracles in my life and those around me when I chose to make this journey. I have come to realize that everything that happened to me that I thought was bad was really good. I can see and feel God's hand guiding me. So whether people believe in Him or not, He does believe in us and He is pruning us all for our own betterment here in this world. The only question is will we recognize it and learn or will we keep playing our self centric movie over and over again in our head. The ball is in your court, brother. You can choose to mock me or accept me as I am. Your call.

I was genuinely curious until I read some of your further posts. It's obvious that your stated beliefs on the efficacy of good and evil, and the concept of selflessness are flowery sounding, but you aren't quite capable of following them yourself. Just like most who claim Christianity, you are lacking the understanding or self control required to apply what you arrogantly demand from others.

I'm not surprised. You only saw my responses in a vacuum because that was what you wanted to see. I guess those other guys were saints, right? I never said I was a saint. We always judge ourselves differently than we judge others, especially others who are not of our tribe. I have no idea where you got the idea that I demanded anything from others.

Now I am curious, which posts did you believe were over the line and why?

You presented yourself as someone who could prove credible evidence of the existence of a creator, and later implied that the things commonly accepted as moral behavior were a directly from that creator. Here is a hint. Next time you want to be a fountain of religious information and the value of morality, don't childishly accuse someone of being gay in the middle of your homily.

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

 

[Mudda]

Brah, you can't even get other theists to agree with you.

 

[Czernobog]

I was genuinely curious until I read some of your further posts. It's obvious that your stated beliefs on the efficacy of good and evil, and the concept of selflessness are flowery sounding, but you aren't quite capable of following them yourself. Just like most who claim Christianity, you are lacking the understanding or self control required to apply what you arrogantly demand from others.

I'm not surprised. You only saw my responses in a vacuum because that was what you wanted to see. I guess those other guys were saints, right? I never said I was a saint. We always judge ourselves differently than we judge others, especially others who are not of our tribe. I have no idea where you got the idea that I demanded anything from others.

Now I am curious, which posts did you believe were over the line and why?

You presented yourself as someone who could prove credible evidence of the existence of a creator, and later implied that the things commonly accepted as moral behavior were a directly from that creator. Here is a hint. Next time you want to be a fountain of religious information and the value of morality, don't childishly accuse someone of being gay in the middle of your homily.

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

 

[ding]

I'm not surprised. You only saw my responses in a vacuum because that was what you wanted to see. I guess those other guys were saints, right? I never said I was a saint. We always judge ourselves differently than we judge others, especially others who are not of our tribe. I have no idea where you got the idea that I demanded anything from others.

Now I am curious, which posts did you believe were over the line and why?

You presented yourself as someone who could prove credible evidence of the existence of a creator, and later implied that the things commonly accepted as moral behavior were a directly from that creator. Here is a hint. Next time you want to be a fountain of religious information and the value of morality, don't childishly accuse someone of being gay in the middle of your homily.

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

Hey, dumbfuck, you are the one who argues against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agrees with the founding fathers of communism. You are the dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are the dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are the dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are the dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. No wonder you want to argue theology instead of reality.

 

[PK1]

Boy, is that line getting old!
LOL

Only because it challenges your beliefs. Truth usually hurts before it helps.

What truth are you referring to?

The kind none of your kind wants to hear.

Subjective "truth" [sic] = fantasy.
Also known as wishful thinking, esp when one imagines they have a "relationship" with a "personal" god.

I am not an atheist, but i have not experienced any rational evidence for a theistic position. The teleological argument is naive.

Objective truth = reality

How do you know I don't? Because you don't? We all do, most just don't realize it.

If you are not an atheist and you don't have any rational evidence for a theistic position, does that mean you believe you are an agnostic? Because if that were true would not only limit your argument to those that believe, you would also be arguing against non-belief. By definition an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Philosophically, i am an ignostic about "God" claims.
As a real scientist, i am agnostic about all claims regarding a god. I disagree with atheists as well as theists.

Objective & rational evidence about rational concepts are my guides.
Agnosticism = no belief without knowledge.
This famous statement is an example:
"When asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."

 

[Mudda]

You presented yourself as someone who could prove credible evidence of the existence of a creator, and later implied that the things commonly accepted as moral behavior were a directly from that creator. Here is a hint. Next time you want to be a fountain of religious information and the value of morality, don't childishly accuse someone of being gay in the middle of your homily.

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

Hey, dumbfuck, you are the one who argues against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agrees with the founding fathers of communism. You are the dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are the dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are the dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are the dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. No wonder you want to argue theology instead of reality.

The Middle East is evidence of a society WITH god. You lose.

 

[ding]

Only because it challenges your beliefs. Truth usually hurts before it helps.

What truth are you referring to?

The kind none of your kind wants to hear.

Subjective "truth" [sic] = fantasy.
Also known as wishful thinking, esp when one imagines they have a "relationship" with a "personal" god.

I am not an atheist, but i have not experienced any rational evidence for a theistic position. The teleological argument is naive.

Objective truth = reality

How do you know I don't? Because you don't? We all do, most just don't realize it.

If you are not an atheist and you don't have any rational evidence for a theistic position, does that mean you believe you are an agnostic? Because if that were true would not only limit your argument to those that believe, you would also be arguing against non-belief. By definition an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Philosophically, i am an ignostic about "God" claims.
As a real scientist, i am agnostic about all claims regarding a god. I disagree with atheists as well as theists.

Objective & rational evidence about rational concepts are my guides.
Agnosticism = no belief without knowledge.
This famous statement is an example:
"When asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."

Really? Can you send me a link to one of your posts that shows you disagreeing with an atheist? Because if none exist, then do you really believe you have been objective in our conversations. In fact, since you are a real scientist, maybe what you should do it plot up the number of times you have argued with believers and non-believers and see if there is a trend. What do I know though, I'm just a lowly engineer who applies science in commercial real world applications, right?

 

[BULLDOG]

This silliness has already gone on for too long, but just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be evidence of a creator? I mean something other than a gut feeling.

I agree.

That's a fair question and you seem like you are being genuinely curious about why I believe what I do. The order of the universe. It is incredibly ordered and it does so despite chaos. The evolution of matter to consciousness and how each phase was so similar in its process and how we can see that throughout nature here on earth. The similarity of the cycles in nature and how the saeculm cycle mirrors that. The fact that we prefer good over evil. The fact that virtue is the greatest organizing principle in mankind. The law of compensation that seems to be at work which acts to prune us whether we believe in Him or not. That we are given feedback to know the difference between doing right and doing wrong but rationalizing that we are doing right. The fact that all of the teachings on forgiveness, thankfulness, forgiveness and humility have practical applications that naturally lead to successful outcomes. The fact that dying to self leads one to not have a preference for an outcome or consequence to self and leads to seeing objective reality. These are incredibly powerful behaviors which naturally lead to success in all endeavors, especially relationships. Did you know that it is happiness which leads to success and not the other way around? Happiness turns on all of the learning centers of the brain. But most importantly, I have seen the miracles in my life and those around me when I chose to make this journey. I have come to realize that everything that happened to me that I thought was bad was really good. I can see and feel God's hand guiding me. So whether people believe in Him or not, He does believe in us and He is pruning us all for our own betterment here in this world. The only question is will we recognize it and learn or will we keep playing our self centric movie over and over again in our head. The ball is in your court, brother. You can choose to mock me or accept me as I am. Your call.

I was genuinely curious until I read some of your further posts. It's obvious that your stated beliefs on the efficacy of good and evil, and the concept of selflessness are flowery sounding, but you aren't quite capable of following them yourself. Just like most who claim Christianity, you are lacking the understanding or self control required to apply what you arrogantly demand from others.

I'm not surprised. You only saw my responses in a vacuum because that was what you wanted to see. I guess those other guys were saints, right? I never said I was a saint. We always judge ourselves differently than we judge others, especially others who are not of our tribe. I have no idea where you got the idea that I demanded anything from others.

Now I am curious, which posts did you believe were over the line and why?

You presented yourself as someone who could prove credible evidence of the existence of a creator, and later implied that the things commonly accepted as moral behavior were a directly from that creator. Here is a hint. Next time you want to be a fountain of religious information and the value of morality, don't childishly accuse someone of being gay in the middle of your homily.

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

I have been open minded. Yes, I assumed you were wrong from the start, because people starting threads like this have always been wrong, but I gave you more than a fair shot. There have been countless people who tied to prove you claim, but it always comes down to the same thing. No matter what superfluous things you try to tie your your claim to, you have no tangible proof, or logical reason to accept your claim. It all comes down to your gut feeling, and your decision to accept something because that is what you want to do. Your nastiness when that was pointed out to you is quite common too. Believe what you choose to believe, but you will never convince anyone else because the proof required to do that doesn't exist.

 

[Czernobog]

You presented yourself as someone who could prove credible evidence of the existence of a creator, and later implied that the things commonly accepted as moral behavior were a directly from that creator. Here is a hint. Next time you want to be a fountain of religious information and the value of morality, don't childishly accuse someone of being gay in the middle of your homily.

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

Hey, dumbfuck, you are the one who argues against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agrees with the founding fathers of communism. You are the dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are the dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are the dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are the dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. No wonder you want to argue theology instead of reality.

The Founding Fathers also believed that it was okay to own people, and that women were chattle. I argue against a lot of things the Founding Fathers believed. I'm still waiting for you to extol us with all of the good that religion has done for mankind. when the acts of men are done in the name of religion, religion is to blame for those acts of men. There is no baby, only bathwater, that's kind of the point. You have absolutely no concept of reality. You are a joke.

 

[ding]

Brah, you can't even get other theists to agree with you.

He isn't a theist, dumbass. He's ignostic. There... you learned a new word today.

 

[ding]

I see. So it's not because you never had the intention of being open minded, it is because it is my fault in how I responded to others. As near as I can tell, an external locus of control is a requirement of being a militant atheist.

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

Hey, dumbfuck, you are the one who argues against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agrees with the founding fathers of communism. You are the dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are the dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are the dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are the dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. No wonder you want to argue theology instead of reality.

The Founding Fathers also believed that it was okay to own people, and that women were chattle. I argue against a lot of things the Founding Fathers believed. I'm still waiting for you to extol us with all of the good that religion has done for mankind. when the acts of men are done in the name of religion, religion is to blame for those acts of men. There is no baby, only bathwater, that's kind of the point. You have absolutely no concept of reality. You are a joke.

Wow... trashing America's Founding Fathers. You are half way there, brother.

There you go again blaming religion for the acts of men. Your external locus of control is off the charts. The fact that you see zero good from religion proves that you are not objective.

 

[Czernobog]

You see, whenever anyone talks about being "open minded", that's when you know that they are selling bullshit. One need not be "open minded" about facts. They simply are, and are self-evident. Gravity is. I don't have to be "open minded" about it. Oxygen fills the lungs. I don't need to be "open minded about it.

If you have actual evidence of the existence of divinity (a "creator" of the universe) present it. It will either be self-evident, or it won't.

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

Hey, dumbfuck, you are the one who argues against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agrees with the founding fathers of communism. You are the dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are the dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are the dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are the dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. No wonder you want to argue theology instead of reality.

The Founding Fathers also believed that it was okay to own people, and that women were chattle. I argue against a lot of things the Founding Fathers believed. I'm still waiting for you to extol us with all of the good that religion has done for mankind. when the acts of men are done in the name of religion, religion is to blame for those acts of men. There is no baby, only bathwater, that's kind of the point. You have absolutely no concept of reality. You are a joke.

Wow... trashing America's Founding Fathers. You are half way there, brother.

So, you agree with the Founding Fathers that it is perfectly okay to own other people? Wow...how enlightened you are...

There you go again blaming religion for the acts of men. Your external locus of control is off the charts. The fact that you see zero good from religion proves that you are not objective.

Yup. I will continue to to recognise the motivating factor behind men's actions. You keep using that term - external locus of control -without, I think, understanding it It is the belief that events in one’s life, whether good or bad, are caused by uncontrollable factors such as the environment, other people, or a higher power. Religion, particularly the Christian religion is the perfect example of external locus of control. You do not believe that you are capable of making good choices, so you concede all control in your life to an outside higher power. You making the claim against me is the epitome of irony.

 

[ding]

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

Hey, dumbfuck, you are the one who argues against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agrees with the founding fathers of communism. You are the dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are the dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are the dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are the dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. No wonder you want to argue theology instead of reality.

The Founding Fathers also believed that it was okay to own people, and that women were chattle. I argue against a lot of things the Founding Fathers believed. I'm still waiting for you to extol us with all of the good that religion has done for mankind. when the acts of men are done in the name of religion, religion is to blame for those acts of men. There is no baby, only bathwater, that's kind of the point. You have absolutely no concept of reality. You are a joke.

Wow... trashing America's Founding Fathers. You are half way there, brother.

There you go again blaming religion for the acts of men. Your external locus of control is off the charts. The fact that you see zero good from religion proves that you are not objective.

Yup. I will continue to to recognise the motivating factor behind men's actions. You keep using that term - external locus of control -without, I think, understanding it It is the belief that events in one’s life, whether good or bad, are caused by uncontrollable factors such as the environment, other people, or a higher power. Religion, particularly the Christian religion is the perfect example of external locus of control. You do not believe that you are capable of making good choices, so you concede all control in your life to an outside higher power. You making the claim against me is the epitome of irony.

The fact that you see zero good from religion proves that you are not objective. In fact, the logical conclusion of your belief would be to ban and abolish all religion, right? Checkmate.

 

[Czernobog]

The fact that you see zero good from religion proves that you are not objective. In fact, the logical conclusion of your belief would be to ban and abolish all religion, right? Checkmate.

The fact that you have yet to demonstrate one good thing that religion has done, proves that you know I'm right. Ban religion? Nope. No need. Religion is self-defeating. As man becomes more enlightened - thanks to science - and continues to learn the damage that religion does, man will simply outgrow religion. No legal remedies necessary. Which is why atheism is actually growing in Western Civilisation, while Christianity is shrinking.

 

[ding]

I have. You aren't open minded. You are a militant atheist who condemns respect for anyone who believes in God, especially Christians.

My belief is that militant atheists like yourself are dumbasses because you ignore objective truth. You are a dumbass because you don't weight the good. You are a dumbass because you blame religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbass for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbass because you have a vague rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being. You are a dumbass for ignoring the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

You are a dumbass for not being able to imagine what a world without God or religion would look like. Which is... their religion would be socialism. They would worship big government and social policy. It would be based on atheism and the deification of man. It would proceed in almost all of its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of the individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They would have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine would be abolition of private property, abolition of family and communality or equality. They would practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. They would be identified by an external locus of control. They would worship science but would be the first to argue against it when it did not suit their cause. They would force everyone to believe the same things and think the same way. There would be no diversity of thought, only homogenization of thought.

You're the only dubmass here. You don't even understand the difference between a religion, and a political ideology. Socialism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. God is a myth. You keep talking about "objective reality", yet there is nothing objective about your reality. Everything you present is your subjective interpretation of reality. You are arrogant, stupid, and delusional.

What is funny is that when people keep pointing out that your delusions are just that, it's "everyone else" that has the problem. But this is what the religious do. When they can't convince, they attack.

You are dismissed.

Hey, dumbfuck, you are the one who argues against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom and agrees with the founding fathers of communism. You are the dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are the dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are the dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are the dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like. No wonder you want to argue theology instead of reality.

The Founding Fathers also believed that it was okay to own people, and that women were chattle. I argue against a lot of things the Founding Fathers believed. I'm still waiting for you to extol us with all of the good that religion has done for mankind. when the acts of men are done in the name of religion, religion is to blame for those acts of men. There is no baby, only bathwater, that's kind of the point. You have absolutely no concept of reality. You are a joke.

Wow... trashing America's Founding Fathers. You are half way there, brother.

So, you agree with the Founding Fathers that it is perfectly okay to own other people? Wow...how enlightened you are...

There you go again blaming religion for the acts of men. Your external locus of control is off the charts. The fact that you see zero good from religion proves that you are not objective.

Yup. I will continue to to recognise the motivating factor behind men's actions. You keep using that term - external locus of control -without, I think, understanding it It is the belief that events in one’s life, whether good or bad, are caused by uncontrollable factors such as the environment, other people, or a higher power. Religion, particularly the Christian religion is the perfect example of external locus of control. You do not believe that you are capable of making good choices, so you concede all control in your life to an outside higher power. You making the claim against me is the epitome of irony.

You have no concept of locus of control is or how to identify either one. I do. We use it when we interview prospective new hires. I suspect you had never even heard of it until I brought it up.

Just as I explained to you about understanding the context of the times that the Bible was written - which you dismissed like a dumbfuck - the same thing applies to our Founding Fathers. So if you want to besmirch them just because you have no other response to the fact that they believed religion and morality was necessary for freedom and liberty. Go for it. That just proves what a dumbfuck you really are.

You are arguing against the beliefs of the Founding Fathers of liberty and freedom. You are agreeing with the founding fathers of communism. You are a dumbfuck who subjectively weighs the bad and ignores the good. You are a dumbfuck who blames religion or God for acts of men. You are a dumbfuck who throws the baby out with the bathwater. You are a dumbfuck who only has a vague and rosy notion of goodness of life without out religion or belief in a Supreme Being and ignores the historical evidence of what a society without God looks like.

 

[ding]

The fact that you see zero good from religion proves that you are not objective. In fact, the logical conclusion of your belief would be to ban and abolish all religion, right? Checkmate.

The fact that you have yet to demonstrate one good thing that religion has done, proves that you know I'm right. Ban religion? Nope. No need. Religion is self-defeating. As man becomes more enlightened - thanks to science - and continues to learn the damage that religion does, man will simply outgrow religion. No legal remedies necessary. Which is why atheism is actually growing in Western Civilisation, while Christianity is shrinking.

Hey, moron, I don't need to demonstrate the good that religion has done. The fact that you see zero good from religion is what proves you are not objective. Are you too stupid to understand this concept?

And since you do not believe religion has done anything good whatsoever and because you believe religion is only responsible for evil, then you must believe religion should be abolished. Are you that stupid that you can't see the logical conclusion of your argument?

 

[Czernobog]

You have no concept of locus of control is or how to identify either one. I do. We use it when we interview prospective new hires. I suspect you had never even heard of it until I brought it up.

You can suspect whatever you would like. it makes no difference to me.

...a dumbfuck...a dumbfuck...

Sorry. That was all I got. You really seem to be taking my unwillingness to buy into your delusion personally. Maybe you should take a break, and pray about it. LOL

...You are a dumbfuck...You are a dumbfuck...You are a dumbfuck...You are a dumbfuck...

There's that rage again. I think you need some Jesus time. LOL