Today's reading for the irrationalists and superstitious atheists of USMB

[AVG-JOE]

You're right. There's no way to disprove God. Just as there's no way to disprove that our entire universe isn't a speck on a flower being protected by an elephant named Horton.

There are countless zany beliefs that can't be disproven. Therefore we can't rule out Zeus, or Ra the sun god, or Shiva, or *gasp* Allah.

Hey maybe the Jonestown people were right and right now they're on some ascended plane with aliens like they believed! You can't disprove that!

To Possibilities!
​

And to the AWESOME Monkey job of deciding what's plausible!

​

 

[westwall]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/Belief-in-God-is-part-of-human-nature-Oxford-study.html


The idea of God is not a figment of human culture. It's a fact of human nature and human psychology. This is self-evident, but I guess if you just have to have a scientific study to prove what logic already proves, here you go.

And your avatar is wrong too.

No, it's not. The Bill of Rights is 9 limitations on what government can do and one final option. Or as Jefferson wrote, "the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is it won't be needed till they try and take it away".

 

[AVG-JOE]

Of course mythical conceptualizations of divinity can be ruled out, dummy. Stop being a dummy. What cannot be ruled out is a divine origin for existence.

The quickest way to find the dummy hand in any discussion is to look for the guy who's resorting personal insults.

Jus' sayin'... ​

 

[Agit8r]

It's funny that while the article would treat human nature as relevant to what is wrong or right, the most popular religion would treat human nature as inherently evil in all cases:

"every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood"
-- 'God'; from Genesis 8:21

 

[Justin Davis]

Of course mythical conceptualizations of divinity can be ruled out, dummy. Stop being a dummy. What cannot be ruled out is a divine origin for existence.

The quickest way to find the dummy hand in any discussion is to look for the guy who's resorting personal insults.

Jus' sayin'... ​

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. I was supposed to take your post about Zeus and pink elephants and stuff seriously. My bad. Only a dummy would fail to take you seriously. Post it again and give me another chance. Please. And then we can see if logic just goes away and see if the tiny number of people in the world who think the vast majority of humanity who believe in a zany idea flips.

 

[Agit8r]

Or as Jefferson wrote, "the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is it won't be needed till they try and take it away".

Jefferson did not use "try and" or "till" instead of "until" for that matter. That fake quote is from the late 20th century at the earliest

 

[Justin Davis]

It's funny that while the article would treat human nature as relevant to what is wrong or right, the most popular religion would treat human nature as inherently evil in all cases:

"every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood"
-- 'God'; from Genesis 8:21

That's a pretty superficial understanding of things. I wonder why billions of people over the centuries never thought there was anything ironic about the ability to discern the difference between right and wrong and the idea that humanity is prone to evil? Gee. Maybe reality is more complex than the black-and-white thinking of the typical relativist. Yeah. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that, Agit8r.

 

[Justin Davis]

Sigh

You have no understanding at all.

I don't need a study to tell me that the universe exists, that I exist and that either the universe has always existed or was caused to come into existence by a transcendent Being.

That's the bottom line, and faith has nothing to do with that at all. Logic. Reason. Common sense. Everybody knows that these are the options for origin, and everybody knows that the second option cannot be ruled out.

Nobody is questioning the fact of your existence. It's your claim of the existence of a deity that's up for debate.

Your claim, your obligation to supply evidence and proofs for consideration.


Of course, if we're really going to get anywhere, step one is to name the God that's up for discussion. I've been ass-u-me-ing that this thread references The God of Abraham, as defined in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran. Let me know if that's wrong.

I didn't claim a deity existed. Is that a Freudian slip on your part? Do you make it a habit of reacting to things without thought?

 

[Agit8r]

the black-and-white thinking of the typical relativist

Um... wow...

 

[Justin Davis]

You're right. There's no way to disprove God. Just as there's no way to disprove that our entire universe isn't a speck on a flower being protected by an elephant named Horton.

There are countless zany beliefs that can't be disproven. Therefore we can't rule out Zeus, or Ra the sun god, or Shiva, or *gasp* Allah.

Hey maybe the Jonestown people were right and right now they're on some ascended plane with aliens like they believed! You can't disprove that!

To Possibilities!
​

And to the AWESOME Monkey job of deciding what's plausible!

​

Oh, look, the peanut gallery of atheism now thinks it's tiny little fraction of humanity is more enlightened. Hmm. I wonder. What's the source of this idea about God they keep saying there's no substance to. Imagine that. They think we're supposed to take them seriously when their position necessarily assumes the reality of the evidence and logic for divinity in order to assert there's no substance behind the idea. A-THEIST.

 

[Justin Davis]

the black-and-white thinking of the typical relativist

Um... wow...

Um . . . duh.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You're right. There's no way to disprove God. Just as there's no way to disprove that our entire universe isn't a speck on a flower being protected by an elephant named Horton.

There are countless zany beliefs that can't be disproven. Therefore we can't rule out Zeus, or Ra the sun god, or Shiva, or *gasp* Allah.

Hey maybe the Jonestown people were right and right now they're on some ascended plane with aliens like they believed! You can't disprove that!

To Possibilities!
​

And to the AWESOME Monkey job of deciding what's plausible!

​

Oh, look, the peanut gallery of atheism now thinks it's tiny little fraction of humanity is more enlightened. Hmm. I wonder. What's the source of this idea about God they keep saying there's no substance to. Imagine that. They think we're supposed to take them seriously when their position necessarily assumes the reality of the evidence and logic for divinity in order to assert there's no substance behind the idea. A-THEIST.

How smug. Did you know the entire universe is balanced on a gigantic turtle? Prove me wrong.

 

[Agit8r]

the black-and-white thinking of the typical relativist

Um... wow...

Um . . . duh.

An absolutist would see things as black-and-white. A relativist would see everything as gray.

 

[Justin Davis]

the black-and-white thinking of the typical relativist

Um... wow...

Um . . . duh.

An absolutist would see things as black-and-white. A relativist would see everything as gray.

Sorry but that's just your Cracker Jack Box philosophy. Absolutists deal with the complexities of reality. Relativists think it makes sense to say that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are not absolutes, which is contradictory and irrational. Relativists don't to the heavy lifting of real thought. They don't do logical consistency or rationality. Relativism is irrationalism, so relativists just make black-and-white statements that no one need take seriously because according to them nothing they say is true or has to be rational. Relativists are idiots.

 

[TheOldSchool]

the black-and-white thinking of the typical relativist

Um... wow...

Um . . . duh.

An absolutist would see things as black-and-white. A relativist would see everything as gray.

Sorry but that's just your Cracker Jack Box philosophy. Absolutists deal with the complexities of reality. Relativists think it makes sense to say that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are not absolutes, which is contradictory and irrational. Relativists don't to the heavy lifting of real thought. They don't do logical consistency or rationality. Relativism is irrationalism, so relativists just make black-and-white statements that no one need take seriously because according to them nothing they say is true or has to be rational. Relativists are idiots.

Ironic.

 

[westwall]

Or as Jefferson wrote, "the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is it won't be needed till they try and take it away".

Jefferson did not use "try and" or "till" instead of "until" for that matter. That fake quote is from the late 20th century at the earliest

That's when it was first published. The Source was supposedly his accumulated writings. Here are some that mean the same thing and are unarguable.


"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.


"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

 

[Agit8r]

the black-and-white thinking of the typical relativist

Um... wow...

Um . . . duh.

An absolutist would see things as black-and-white. A relativist would see everything as gray.

Sorry but that's just your Cracker Jack Box philosophy. Absolutists deal with the complexities of reality. Relativists think it makes sense to say that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are not absolutes, which is contradictory and irrational. Relativists don't to the heavy lifting of real thought. They don't do logical consistency or rationality. Relativism is irrationalism, so relativists just make black-and-white statements that no one need take seriously because according to them nothing they say is true or has to be rational. Relativists are idiots.

Typically "relativist" is a label applied to people who do not accept traditional interpretations of morality, or occasionally it is a label accepted by those who hold that all explanations of morality are equally valid. I only fit the first of these.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sorry but that's just your Cracker Jack Box philosophy. Absolutists deal with the complexities of reality. Relativists think it makes sense to say that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are not absolutes, which is contradictory and irrational. Relativists don't to the heavy lifting of real thought. They don't do logical consistency or rationality. Relativism is irrationalism, so relativists just make black-and-white statements that no one need take seriously because according to them nothing they say is true or has to be rational. Relativists are idiots.

That's exactly right. Agit8r doesn't have the first clue about what epistemological relativism really is at all.

Relativists are bores, slogan spouters, the essence of simple-minded, black-and-white speak, and, of course, most atheists are relativists.

Take that smug as a bug simpleton TheOldSchool, for example, babbling about turtles: that's about as deep as the intellect of most, though not all, atheists get.

Question: Now what is the idea of God really?

Answer: In terms of the problems of existence and origin, it's the transcendent alternative for ultimate origin derived from the incontrovertible axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. In more general terms, this same axiom is also the foundation of absolute objectivity for logic and science. But don't expect the relativist to ever get beyond his black-and-white slogan speak, let alone scratch the surface of this axiom, even though, like all axioms, it's self-evident; don't expect him to grasp the fact that the declaration that all is gray is just a simple-minded slogan, not a complex, rational proof of anything. Relativists just go in circles around the same mulberry tree because, of course, there can be no progression in thought predicated on an absurdity that violates the law of contradiction.

But like I said, not all atheists are imbecilic, black-and-white-think relativists.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253778/
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Absolutists (theists and atheists) regard relativists with contempt


The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/
On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/
On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

 

[Agit8r]

Sorry but that's just your Cracker Jack Box philosophy. Absolutists deal with the complexities of reality. Relativists think it makes sense to say that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are not absolutes, which is contradictory and irrational. Relativists don't to the heavy lifting of real thought. They don't do logical consistency or rationality. Relativism is irrationalism, so relativists just make black-and-white statements that no one need take seriously because according to them nothing they say is true or has to be rational. Relativists are idiots.

That's exactly right. Agit8r doesn't have the first clue about what epistemological relativism really is at all.

Relativists are bores, slogan spouters, the essence of simple-minded, black-and-white speak, and, of course, most atheists are relativists.

Take that smug as a bug simpleton TheOldSchool, for example, babbling about turtles: that's about as deep as the intellect of most, though not all, atheists get.

Question: Now what is the idea of God really?

Answer: In terms of the problems of existence and origin, it's the transcendent alternative for ultimate origin derived from the incontrovertible axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. In more general terms, this same axiom is also the foundation of absolute objectivity for logic and science. But don't expect the relativist to ever get beyond his black-and-white slogan speak, let alone scratch the surface of this axiom, even though, like all axioms, it's self-evident; don't expect him to grasp the fact that the declaration that all is gray is just a simple-minded slogan, not a complex, rational proof of anything. Relativists just go in circles around the same mulberry tree because, of course, there can be no progression in thought predicated on an absurdity that violates the law of contradiction.

But like I said, not all atheists are imbecilic, black-and-white-think relativists.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253778/
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Absolutists (theists and atheists) regard relativists with contempt


The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/
On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/
On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

I can see that you have given this subject more thought than I have, so let me ask; was Jesus an absolutist, or a relativist? And why?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Sorry but that's just your Cracker Jack Box philosophy. Absolutists deal with the complexities of reality. Relativists think it makes sense to say that there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are not absolutes, which is contradictory and irrational. Relativists don't to the heavy lifting of real thought. They don't do logical consistency or rationality. Relativism is irrationalism, so relativists just make black-and-white statements that no one need take seriously because according to them nothing they say is true or has to be rational. Relativists are idiots.

That's exactly right. Agit8r doesn't have the first clue about what epistemological relativism really is at all.

Relativists are bores, slogan spouters, the essence of simple-minded, black-and-white speak, and, of course, most atheists are relativists.

Take that smug as a bug simpleton TheOldSchool, for example, babbling about turtles: that's about as deep as the intellect of most, though not all, atheists get.

Question: Now what is the idea of God really?

Answer: In terms of the problems of existence and origin, it's the transcendent alternative for ultimate origin derived from the incontrovertible axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin. In more general terms, this same axiom is also the foundation of absolute objectivity for logic and science. But don't expect the relativist to ever get beyond his black-and-white slogan speak, let alone scratch the surface of this axiom, even though, like all axioms, it's self-evident; don't expect him to grasp the fact that the declaration that all is gray is just a simple-minded slogan, not a complex, rational proof of anything. Relativists just go in circles around the same mulberry tree because, of course, there can be no progression in thought predicated on an absurdity that violates the law of contradiction.

But like I said, not all atheists are imbecilic, black-and-white-think relativists.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10253778/
The Unlikely Beliefs of Miss Herd Mentality (Inevitable the Dunce): Absolutists (theists and atheists) regard relativists with contempt


The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 99 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10139375/
On the Absurdity of Charging that From Nothing, Nothing Comes is an Informal Fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance or Argument from Ignorance)


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10149380/
On the Only Foundation of Absolute Objectivity

I can see that you have given this subject more thought than I have, so let me ask; was Jesus an absolutist, or a relativist? And why?

An absolutist, of course. Premised on the universally immutable absolute of God Himself, the Bible asserts a balanced, rational-empirical epistemology for justified true belief/knowledge and, therefore, the metaphysics of methodological naturalism for science.

Relativism is irrationalism, and materialism as an epistemological absolute is unsustainable.

Only if an immutable God exists and is the very essence of the Principle of Identity (comprehensively, the universal laws of thought: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle) is absolute certainty possible. How can the materialist assert anything to be absolutely certain on the basis that ever-mutable materiality has primacy over the absolute laws of conscious thought? (Mind you, this is not the same thing as saying that mere human consciousness has primacy over existence.) And since the assertion, as Justin pointed out, that there are no absolutes but the absolute that there are not absolutes is absurd . . . why would we assume God does not exist? More to the point: if there are no absolutes then the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false; hence, relativism is inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite must be true.

The relativist can bark at the moon all he wants: "All is relative! All is relative!" Every time he barks, he actually barks: "Truth is absolute! Truth is absolute!"

No one escapes the laws of human thought. If somehow or another truth is not absolute outside the confines of human consciousness and the logic thereof, if the apparent synchronization between the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the apparent properties, processes and physical laws of nature, is an illusion, if the imperatives of human thought do not hold ultimately or transcendently beyond the empirical realm of being: how could we possibly know that and what possible difference what it make to us?

In the face of the axioms of human thought, why is it sensible to hold that God does not exist?

In the face of the axiom of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, why is it sensible to hold that God does not exist?

In the face of the theological axioms that (1) God must be, and that (2) God must be the very essence and the ground of rationality, why is it sensible to hold that God does not exist?

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


Traditional Transcendental Argument for God's Existence (TAG): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248541/.


The Rock Solid Transcendental Argument for God's Existence: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248552/.


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/. ​