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

[ding]

Bullshit. You have never made an objective assessment of the good that religion brings to mankind in your life. Not once. You are delusional.

Says the guy who believes in the invisible magic skyman. I feel pretty secure in my position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Says the guy who troll religious forums to mock other human beings, would abolish religion if he could, seeks a socialist utopia, trashes America's Founding Fathers, while agreeing with the founding fathers of communism, dismisses the role atheism played in the greatest atrocity known to mankind, denies the foundational role that Christianity played in the rise of Western Civilization and has a flaming external locus of control.

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

Bullshit. You have never made an objective assessment of the good that religion brings to mankind in your life. Not once. You are delusional.

Says the guy who believes in the invisible magic skyman. I feel pretty secure in my position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Says the guy who troll religious forums to mock other human beings, would abolish religion if he could, seeks a socialist utopia, trashes America's Founding Fathers, while agreeing with the founding fathers of communism, dismisses the role atheism played in the greatest atrocity known to mankind, denies the foundational role that Christianity played in the rise of Western Civilization and has a flaming external locus of control.

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

 

[ding]

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?

If you are like most engineers i know, you probably lack a broad education that includes general philosophy (ontology, epistemology, mind, etc), philosophy of science, biology, psychology & other social sciences.
Since i focus on rational evidence when forming beliefs, i can be considered a "weak atheist" as well as an agnostic.
You too are a weak atheist.

FYI, I posted a basic lesson on atheism and our theistic difference in the other thread "Is there a God?" ...
.

Crap, can't you make up your mind. First you were ignostic, now you are a weak atheist. What will it be next?

 

[PK1]

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?

If you are like most engineers i know, you probably lack a broad education that includes general philosophy (ontology, epistemology, mind, etc), philosophy of science, biology, psychology & other social sciences.
Since i focus on rational evidence when forming beliefs, i can be considered a "weak atheist" as well as an agnostic.
You too are a weak atheist.

FYI, I posted a basic lesson on atheism and our theistic difference in the other thread "Is there a God?" ...
.

Crap, can't you make up your mind. First you were ignostic, now you are a weak atheist. What will it be next?

Apparently, it's not easy to explain thought variations to someone who prefers black/white simplicity.
I'll repeat with an adjustment to attempt clarification:

Philosophically, i am an ignostic about "God" claims.
As a real scientist, i am agnostic about the possibility of a "god".
I disagree with strong atheists as well as theists.
* Since i disagree with ALL current claims on the existence of a "God", i can be considered a weak atheist as well as an agnostic & ignostic!
Since you may disagree with claims that Mohammad was a prophet for his characterization of a god, or that Zeus exists, you are also a weak atheist relative to those claims.

If the above is completely confusing to you, then maybe engineering was the right career choice.

 

[ding]

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?

If you are like most engineers i know, you probably lack a broad education that includes general philosophy (ontology, epistemology, mind, etc), philosophy of science, biology, psychology & other social sciences.
Since i focus on rational evidence when forming beliefs, i can be considered a "weak atheist" as well as an agnostic.
You too are a weak atheist.

FYI, I posted a basic lesson on atheism and our theistic difference in the other thread "Is there a God?" ...
.

Crap, can't you make up your mind. First you were ignostic, now you are a weak atheist. What will it be next?

Apparently, it's not easy to explain thought variations to someone who prefers black/white simplicity.
I'll repeat with an adjustment to attempt clarification:

Philosophically, i am an ignostic about "God" claims.
As a real scientist, i am agnostic about the possibility of a "god".
I disagree with strong atheists as well as theists.
* Since i disagree with ALL current claims on the existence of a "God", i can be considered a weak atheist as well as an agnostic & ignostic!
Since you may disagree with claims that Mohammad was a prophet for his characterization of a god, or that Zeus exists, you are also a weak atheist relative to those claims.

If the above is completely confusing to you, then maybe engineering was the right career choice.

I think you are more confused than a transgender. You don't know what you are. Is this anything like the heisenberg uncertainty principle? I am a Catholic. I don't argue against other religions. I don't argue against not having a religion. I have no need to argue what I am not. I only need to argue what I am. Your entire position here reminds me vaguely of the cultural marxist practice of critical theory whereby everything is proven through the negative. Which of course is total bullshit. I have already explained the flaw in your logic regarding your claims of ignostic and agnostic beliefs. Your actions belie your claims. I believe you need to face the fact that you don't believe in God, period. Call that whatever you like. It is what it is. I have little doubt that engineering was the right career choice, I love what I do.

 

[PK1]

... why do so many people pray to a nonexistent entity for favors while they live and presents when they die?
... the possibility of superior intelligences or that there is hidden teaching in scripture

The explanation for why "so many people pray to a nonexistent entity" is very simple within social & developmental psychology viewpoints:
1) children learn thoughts & overt behavioral patterns within social context;
2) these behavioral patterns develop emotional correlates that may be carried into adulthood;
3) certain sub/cultural beliefs continue to influence thoughts in brains that don't learn to think for themselves based on analytical tools within the fields of modern philosophy & sciences.

The "possibility of superior intelligences" is at best a primitive hypothesis at this time.

This is too much information for a theist. Just like they can't take in the 1000's of reasons why evolution is probably true. If you can't tell them in 1 or 2 sentences why all living things are related, and if it's not something their brains can wrap around they will reject the possibility that we were once monkey's and before that fish.

But they will accept a holy book that tells of talking snakes and virgin births.

It is hard for them to imagine/believe/comprehend that they are brainwashed.

Why there is no god

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

Your post was kinda funny (about theistic thoughts), and i agree ... with the exception that
"we were once monkey's and before that fish."
That is not precise, and a theist would be even more confused by that statement.
It is better to say that evolutionary theory indicates that humans & monkeys & fish have common ancestors.

 

[PK1]

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?

If you are like most engineers i know, you probably lack a broad education that includes general philosophy (ontology, epistemology, mind, etc), philosophy of science, biology, psychology & other social sciences.
Since i focus on rational evidence when forming beliefs, i can be considered a "weak atheist" as well as an agnostic.
You too are a weak atheist.

FYI, I posted a basic lesson on atheism and our theistic difference in the other thread "Is there a God?" ...
.

Crap, can't you make up your mind. First you were ignostic, now you are a weak atheist. What will it be next?

Apparently, it's not easy to explain thought variations to someone who prefers black/white simplicity.
I'll repeat with an adjustment to attempt clarification:

Philosophically, i am an ignostic about "God" claims.
As a real scientist, i am agnostic about the possibility of a "god".
I disagree with strong atheists as well as theists.
* Since i disagree with ALL current claims on the existence of a "God", i can be considered a weak atheist as well as an agnostic & ignostic!
Since you may disagree with claims that Mohammad was a prophet for his characterization of a god, or that Zeus exists, you are also a weak atheist relative to those claims.

If the above is completely confusing to you, then maybe engineering was the right career choice.

I think you are more confused than a transgender. You don't know what you are. Is this anything like the heisenberg uncertainty principle? I am a Catholic. I don't argue against other religions. I don't argue against not having a religion. I have no need to argue what I am not. I only need to argue what I am. Your entire position here reminds me vaguely of the cultural marxist practice of critical theory whereby everything is proven through the negative. Which of course is total bullshit. I have already explained the flaw in your logic regarding your claims of ignostic and agnostic beliefs. Your actions belie your claims. I believe you need to face the fact that you don't believe in God, period. Call that whatever you like. It is what it is.

What specifically do you not understand?
Not rocket science, or even rocket engineering.

 

[Czernobog]

Says the guy who believes in the invisible magic skyman. I feel pretty secure in my position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Says the guy who troll religious forums to mock other human beings, would abolish religion if he could, seeks a socialist utopia, trashes America's Founding Fathers, while agreeing with the founding fathers of communism, dismisses the role atheism played in the greatest atrocity known to mankind, denies the foundational role that Christianity played in the rise of Western Civilization and has a flaming external locus of control.

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

Says the guy who believes in the invisible magic skyman. I feel pretty secure in my position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Says the guy who troll religious forums to mock other human beings, would abolish religion if he could, seeks a socialist utopia, trashes America's Founding Fathers, while agreeing with the founding fathers of communism, dismisses the role atheism played in the greatest atrocity known to mankind, denies the foundational role that Christianity played in the rise of Western Civilization and has a flaming external locus of control.

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

 

[ding]

Says the guy who troll religious forums to mock other human beings, would abolish religion if he could, seeks a socialist utopia, trashes America's Founding Fathers, while agreeing with the founding fathers of communism, dismisses the role atheism played in the greatest atrocity known to mankind, denies the foundational role that Christianity played in the rise of Western Civilization and has a flaming external locus of control.

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

Says the guy who troll religious forums to mock other human beings, would abolish religion if he could, seeks a socialist utopia, trashes America's Founding Fathers, while agreeing with the founding fathers of communism, dismisses the role atheism played in the greatest atrocity known to mankind, denies the foundational role that Christianity played in the rise of Western Civilization and has a flaming external locus of control.

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

 

[Czernobog]

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

Feel free to mock my lack of belief in any gods.

It won't hurt my feelings.

It won't damage my faith in reason.

I won't kill you for it.

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

 

[sealybobo]

... why do so many people pray to a nonexistent entity for favors while they live and presents when they die?
... the possibility of superior intelligences or that there is hidden teaching in scripture

The explanation for why "so many people pray to a nonexistent entity" is very simple within social & developmental psychology viewpoints:
1) children learn thoughts & overt behavioral patterns within social context;
2) these behavioral patterns develop emotional correlates that may be carried into adulthood;
3) certain sub/cultural beliefs continue to influence thoughts in brains that don't learn to think for themselves based on analytical tools within the fields of modern philosophy & sciences.

The "possibility of superior intelligences" is at best a primitive hypothesis at this time.

This is too much information for a theist. Just like they can't take in the 1000's of reasons why evolution is probably true. If you can't tell them in 1 or 2 sentences why all living things are related, and if it's not something their brains can wrap around they will reject the possibility that we were once monkey's and before that fish.

But they will accept a holy book that tells of talking snakes and virgin births.

It is hard for them to imagine/believe/comprehend that they are brainwashed.

Why there is no god

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

Your post was kinda funny (about theistic thoughts), and i agree ... with the exception that
"we were once monkey's and before that fish."
That is not precise, and a theist would be even more confused by that statement.
It is better to say that evolutionary theory indicates that humans & monkeys & fish have common ancestors.

We all came out of the water.

This is why you either believe evolution or you believe God poofed fully grown mammals and reptiles iinto existence who then had the first baby apes, giraffe, spiders, frogs, skunk, ducks, eagles, cobras.

And I know many who choose god put the animals here fully formed rather than believe we all crawled out of the water at some point and slowly became the diverse creatures we are today.

 

[sealybobo]

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

 

[ding]

... why do so many people pray to a nonexistent entity for favors while they live and presents when they die?
... the possibility of superior intelligences or that there is hidden teaching in scripture

The explanation for why "so many people pray to a nonexistent entity" is very simple within social & developmental psychology viewpoints:
1) children learn thoughts & overt behavioral patterns within social context;
2) these behavioral patterns develop emotional correlates that may be carried into adulthood;
3) certain sub/cultural beliefs continue to influence thoughts in brains that don't learn to think for themselves based on analytical tools within the fields of modern philosophy & sciences.

The "possibility of superior intelligences" is at best a primitive hypothesis at this time.

This is too much information for a theist. Just like they can't take in the 1000's of reasons why evolution is probably true. If you can't tell them in 1 or 2 sentences why all living things are related, and if it's not something their brains can wrap around they will reject the possibility that we were once monkey's and before that fish.

But they will accept a holy book that tells of talking snakes and virgin births.

It is hard for them to imagine/believe/comprehend that they are brainwashed.

Why there is no god

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

Your post was kinda funny (about theistic thoughts), and i agree ... with the exception that
"we were once monkey's and before that fish."
That is not precise, and a theist would be even more confused by that statement.
It is better to say that evolutionary theory indicates that humans & monkeys & fish have common ancestors.

We all came out of the water.

This is why you either believe evolution or you believe God poofed fully grown mammals and reptiles iinto existence who then had the first baby apes, giraffe, spiders, frogs, skunk, ducks, eagles, cobras.

And I know many who choose god put the animals here fully formed rather than believe we all crawled out of the water at some point and slowly became the diverse creatures we are today.

The account of genesis is allegorical.

 

[ding]

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

Reason and experience tells us that there is evidence of a creator. The distinction is lost on you.

 

[ding]

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

When have I ever mocked your lack of belief? Never. You want scientific proof where there can never be any. You can't prove that God doesn't exist because of the principle of falsifiability. Therefore, there is no reasoning for your lack of belief. There is nothing to mock and even if there were, I wouldn't mock your faith any more than I would mock the faith of another.

Your mocking me does not hurt my faith in reason. My faith and my reasoning is strong. Despite what you and your fellow militant atheists believe. Your mocking others reveals the flaw in your character and harms you and probably those around you.

No one has ever said that they would kill you. You have been caught in a trap of your own making and you are being overly dramatic about it. Thus proving that you know you are wrong.

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

Not easily enough to not know that your only purpose here is to mock others who do not believe as you do.

 

[ding]

You've called me *****, stalker, dumbass, dumbfiuck. You have accused me of lying.You

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

My burden of proof is easier for me. I only need to prove to myself that mine is right. You have to prove to yourself that they are all wrong. Given that you ignore the other 999 I'm feeling pretty good about my choice.

 

[sealybobo]

Sure, how was that mocking your beliefs? That was me mocking you for being you. Whereas you go trolling religious forums for the express purpose of mocking everyone's beliefs. That is what your mission is. That is what your purpose is. By definition you are a troll.

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

My burden of proof is easier for me. I only need to prove to myself that mine is right. You have to prove to yourself that they are all wrong. Given that you ignore the other 999 I'm feeling pretty good about my choice.

We are both atheists. You just believe in one more God than me.

When you understand why you reject the other 999 why can't you understand why I reject yours?

Reason and experience. How do these things prove a God exists? It's been my experience that religious people lack reasoning skills.

What religion are you anyways? And what sect? What do they say the facts are? I assume Adam and Eve were real people and talked to snakes? And you really believe Mary was impregnated by this creator?

 

[ding]

Wbhiuch was actually the point of my post; not that you have mocked, but that unlike you, if, and when you do mock, you are not going to hurt my feeling, offend me, and piss me off, as I obviously have you.

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

My burden of proof is easier for me. I only need to prove to myself that mine is right. You have to prove to yourself that they are all wrong. Given that you ignore the other 999 I'm feeling pretty good about my choice.

We are both atheists. You just believe in one more God than me.

When you understand why you reject the other 999 why can't you understand why I reject yours?

Reason and experience. How do these things prove a God exists? It's been my experience that religious people lack reasoning skills.

What religion are you anyways? And what sect? What do they say the facts are? I assume Adam and Eve were real people and talked to snakes? And you really believe Mary was impregnated by this creator?

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

 

[Czernobog]

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

My burden of proof is easier for me. I only need to prove to myself that mine is right. You have to prove to yourself that they are all wrong. Given that you ignore the other 999 I'm feeling pretty good about my choice.

We are both atheists. You just believe in one more God than me.

When you understand why you reject the other 999 why can't you understand why I reject yours?

Reason and experience. How do these things prove a God exists? It's been my experience that religious people lack reasoning skills.

What religion are you anyways? And what sect? What do they say the facts are? I assume Adam and Eve were real people and talked to snakes? And you really believe Mary was impregnated by this creator?

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

You seem to be confused. All of the theistic religions start with the same premise: An invisible magic skyman. Prove that such magic skyman exists. No? Religion dismissed. See how easy that was? all 1,000 of them, dismissed because they all progress from the same flawed premise. The only difference between them all is the nature of that invisible magic skyman. Once we have established that the existence of that invisible magic skyman is irrational, his nature is irrelevant.

You are actually the one with a more difficult job. You accept the exsistance of an invisible magic skyman, even without rational proof. So, once you have accepted that, how do you determine, with absolute certainty, that your version of that invisible magic skyman is more accurate than any of the others?

 

[sealybobo]

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

My burden of proof is easier for me. I only need to prove to myself that mine is right. You have to prove to yourself that they are all wrong. Given that you ignore the other 999 I'm feeling pretty good about my choice.

We are both atheists. You just believe in one more God than me.

When you understand why you reject the other 999 why can't you understand why I reject yours?

Reason and experience. How do these things prove a God exists? It's been my experience that religious people lack reasoning skills.

What religion are you anyways? And what sect? What do they say the facts are? I assume Adam and Eve were real people and talked to snakes? And you really believe Mary was impregnated by this creator?

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

You seem to be confused. All of the theistic religions start with the same premise: An invisible magic skyman. Prove that such magic skyman exists. No? Religion dismissed. See how easy that was? all 1,000 of them, dismissed because they all progress from the same flawed premise. The only difference between them all is the nature of that invisible magic skyman. Once we have established that the existence of that invisible magic skyman is irrational, his nature is irrelevant.

You are actually the one with a more difficult job. You accept the exsistance of an invisible magic skyman, even without rational proof. So, once you have accepted that, how do you determine, with absolute certainty, that your version of that invisible magic skyman is more accurate than any of the others?

Because it feels so right. And if it's wrong I don't want to be right

 

[sealybobo]

You sure could have fooled me.

Well, clearly. You believe that an invisible magic skyman impregnated a human with himself to give birth to himself, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save all of us from a condition that he inflicted on us in the first place.

You're obviously easily fooled.

But I thought reason and experience tells us that there must be a creator? What does that even mean?

It's certainly not a scientific theory. It's more of a hypothesis. That is unless you believe one of the 1000 religions that have existed in human history as fact. And the sad thing is many do

My burden of proof is easier for me. I only need to prove to myself that mine is right. You have to prove to yourself that they are all wrong. Given that you ignore the other 999 I'm feeling pretty good about my choice.

We are both atheists. You just believe in one more God than me.

When you understand why you reject the other 999 why can't you understand why I reject yours?

Reason and experience. How do these things prove a God exists? It's been my experience that religious people lack reasoning skills.

What religion are you anyways? And what sect? What do they say the facts are? I assume Adam and Eve were real people and talked to snakes? And you really believe Mary was impregnated by this creator?

No. I don't need to prove any religion is wrong. You have to prove all religions are wrong. You best get busy.

I walk my dog on this outside exercise park/tails where my dog can run free. The different stations have different exercises and one station is a cross and two pews where I'm sure the preacher teaches. It's very nice. Anyways, even though I don't believe in God I could never decimate or desicrate that cross. And do I begrudge the people who worship out there? No. If they are happy. I just don't like religions personally. Even the nicest religious people are still believing fairytale and you kind of have to believe too to fit in