Two Questions for Atheists

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'll be more simple for you, where does tissue (body) come from ... * the brain is an organ, where this conversation began - what created your brain ... how is it the dominate factor it is an empty vessel.

If you're asking what I think you are asking - "how is tissue formed"? This would be achieved by multiple cells that are organized communities of cells that work together to carry out a specific function. That's how tissue is formed. Now, if you are asking how those individual cells come into being, the answer is, "I don't know," Guess what,' "I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it". It didn't when we didn't know how volcanoes worked. It didn't when we didn't know why it rained. It didn't when we didn't know what caused earthquakes. It didn't when we didn't know what caused lightning. And it doesn't here. All "I don't know" means is "I don't know".

So, no. Physiology does not prove the existence of some mythical creator.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy – the last refuge of the desperate theist.

 

[RWS]

Do you hope that you are wrong or do you hope that you are right?


Do you ever have doubts about your Atheism?
.

To clarify, I'm not a staunch atheist, I allow many possibilities in many different scenarios. My argument is that organized religion is false.

So to question #1, I hope I'm wrong and that there is this wonderful type of heaven, where we can continue our consciousness after death in a blissful way.

And to question #2, I allow many possibilities, but no argument has ever been made to make me even remotely religious. Atheism and Spirituality and Religion are three different things. I roll with Atheism/Agnosticism and Spirituality.

 

[BreezeWood]

I'll be more simple for you, where does tissue (body) come from ... * the brain is an organ, where this conversation began - what created your brain ... how is it the dominate factor it is an empty vessel.

If you're asking what I think you are asking - "how is tissue formed"? This would be achieved by multiple cells that are organized communities of cells that work together to carry out a specific function. That's how tissue is formed. Now, if you are asking how those individual cells come into being, the answer is, "I don't know," Guess what,' "I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it". It didn't when we didn't know how volcanoes worked. It didn't when we didn't know why it rained. It didn't when we didn't know what caused earthquakes. It didn't when we didn't know what caused lightning. And it doesn't here. All "I don't know" means is "I don't know".

So, no. Physiology does not prove the existence of some mythical creator.

.

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

what is being conveyed is the metaphysical source of life creates the physiology to provide a physical presence for its existence. that existence has parameters for whatever reason that dictates an Almighty overseer to maintain the health of the process that apparently would otherwise possibly self destruct through error and omission.

the original template for life may or may not be related to the creation of the universe.

That's a beautiful belief. But, sans any actual objective, verifiable evidence, it's just that. Your belief. What you are presenting is a circular argument.

Physiology (the development of cells) occurs as a function of the metaphysical source of life (for which there is no evidence), thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

You get how that logical fallacy eats itself, right?

.

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul".

That's a beautiful belief. But, sans any actual objective, verifiable evidence, it's just that. Your belief. What you are presenting is a circular argument.

Physiology (the development of cells) occurs as a function of the metaphysical source of life (for which there is no evidence), thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

what is being conveyed is the metaphysical source of life creates the physiology to provide a physical presence for its existence.

Czernobog is the one guilty of their own injection of irreality pertaining to the organs associated with the physiology of living beings, the "brain".



- thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

there is no physiology found anywhere in our solar system than planet Earth nor anywhere on Earth as a substance than as a form that is "alive" when death occurs physiology ceases to exist - there is not circular reasoning to then state that physiology is evidence of metaphysical life that creates the substance to give it its physical presence - it is Czern that has no proof otherwise

The appeal to ignorance fallacy – the last refuge of the desperate theist.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy – the last refuge of the desperate theist.


you needn't shiver in your shoes, the metaphysical life is not proof of theism it is only proof of its own existence by the creation of physiology (from nothing), unless denying your own however that is not to deny its complicity for the moral codes it may require for those who do exist to continue to do so.

 

[Czernobog]

Czernobog is the one guilty of their own injection of irreality pertaining to the organs associated with the physiology of living beings, the "brain".

Okay, first, not to be a grammar nazi, or anything, but "irrelality" isn't even a word. And i am injecting nothing. It is your circular argument that turns in on itself.



- thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

there is no physiology found anywhere in our solar system than planet Earth nor anywhere on Earth as a substance than as a form that is "alive" when death occurs physiology ceases to exist - there is not circular reasoning to then state that physiology is evidence of metaphysical life that creates the substance to give it its physical presence - it is Czern that has no proof otherwise.

First, your "evidence" is actually further evidence against the existence of a creator. At least, an intelligent, organised one. I mean, think about it. this creator wasted, time, material, and energy - a lot of it - until finally stumbling across the right atmosphere, and climate on this tiny little backass corner of this vast universe (s)he created to support life. Then this "magnificent Creator" spent the next several billion years, stumbling, and bungling through the various stages of evolutionary life - many of which were simply discarded as useless - until he finally tripped into this, the "pinnacle" of all his grandeur - man. I can only assume that you are as unimpressed by this wasteful, bungling, inept cretin of a creator as I would be. This is certainly no creator I want to know, or have anything to do with.

Second, I don't need "proof otherwise". You are committing a teleological fallacy - "Just because we are unique - as far as we know - we must have been created," The former, in no way, dictates the latter, no matter how much you believe it to be so. Thus, since you have failed to even prove creation, you have failed to prove creator.

 

[Czernobog]

I'll be more simple for you, where does tissue (body) come from ... * the brain is an organ, where this conversation began - what created your brain ... how is it the dominate factor it is an empty vessel.

If you're asking what I think you are asking - "how is tissue formed"? This would be achieved by multiple cells that are organized communities of cells that work together to carry out a specific function. That's how tissue is formed. Now, if you are asking how those individual cells come into being, the answer is, "I don't know," Guess what,' "I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it". It didn't when we didn't know how volcanoes worked. It didn't when we didn't know why it rained. It didn't when we didn't know what caused earthquakes. It didn't when we didn't know what caused lightning. And it doesn't here. All "I don't know" means is "I don't know".

So, no. Physiology does not prove the existence of some mythical creator.

.

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

what is being conveyed is the metaphysical source of life creates the physiology to provide a physical presence for its existence. that existence has parameters for whatever reason that dictates an Almighty overseer to maintain the health of the process that apparently would otherwise possibly self destruct through error and omission.

the original template for life may or may not be related to the creation of the universe.

That's a beautiful belief. But, sans any actual objective, verifiable evidence, it's just that. Your belief. What you are presenting is a circular argument.

Physiology (the development of cells) occurs as a function of the metaphysical source of life (for which there is no evidence), thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

You get how that logical fallacy eats itself, right?

.

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul".

That's a beautiful belief. But, sans any actual objective, verifiable evidence, it's just that. Your belief. What you are presenting is a circular argument.

Physiology (the development of cells) occurs as a function of the metaphysical source of life (for which there is no evidence), thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

what is being conveyed is the metaphysical source of life creates the physiology to provide a physical presence for its existence.

Czernobog is the one guilty of their own injection of irreality pertaining to the organs associated with the physiology of living beings, the "brain".



- thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

View attachment 156342

there is no physiology found anywhere in our solar system than planet Earth nor anywhere on Earth as a substance than as a form that is "alive" when death occurs physiology ceases to exist - there is not circular reasoning to then state that physiology is evidence of metaphysical life that creates the substance to give it its physical presence - it is Czern that has no proof otherwise

The appeal to ignorance fallacy – the last refuge of the desperate theist.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy – the last refuge of the desperate theist.


you needn't shiver in your shoes, the metaphysical life is not proof of theism it is only proof of its own existence by the creation of physiology (from nothing), unless denying your own however that is not to deny its complicity for the moral codes it may require for those who do exist to continue to do so.

Let's be clear:

We live in a world with:

1. Volcanoes
2. Earthquakes
3. Avalanches
4. Floods
5. Cyclones
6. Landslides
7. Mudslides
8. Deadly lifeforms
9. Tsunamis
10. Droughts
11. Lightning
12. Wildfires
    
13. Tornadoes
14. Hailstorms
15. Uninhabitable lands
16. Limnic eruptions

This is the planet on which we live. If there is a creator, this planet was not created for us.

 

[cnm]

So you'll say, well okay, it's "community-based" reasoning.... but we live in a nation where 75% of the population have Judeo-Christian values, why aren't we adhering to their standards of morality and ethics?

It's your contention they have those values. If it is the case then Judeo-Christian values are those exhibited by 75% of the population, by your definition.

 

[cnm]

You've been shown all sorts of evidence countless times.

You asserting things is not evidence. You've shown nothing.

 

[cnm]

Everyone believes in God. But most of them reject Him because they love their sin more than they love the Creator.

Ah, the loon viewpoint.

 

[cnm]

Nope. Sorry. I have all the evidence I need that it's not my brain.

Evidence is that which can be shown.

 

[BreezeWood]

Czernobog is the one guilty of their own injection of irreality pertaining to the organs associated with the physiology of living beings, the "brain".

Okay, first, not to be a grammar nazi, or anything, but "irrelality" isn't even a word. And i am injecting nothing. It is your circular argument that turns in on itself.



- thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

there is no physiology found anywhere in our solar system than planet Earth nor anywhere on Earth as a substance than as a form that is "alive" when death occurs physiology ceases to exist - there is not circular reasoning to then state that physiology is evidence of metaphysical life that creates the substance to give it its physical presence - it is Czern that has no proof otherwise.

First, your "evidence" is actually further evidence against the existence of a creator. At least, an intelligent, organised one. I mean, think about it. this creator wasted, time, material, and energy - a lot of it - until finally stumbling across the right atmosphere, and climate on this tiny little backass corner of this vast universe (s)he created to support life. Then this "magnificent Creator" spent the next several billion years, stumbling, and bungling through the various stages of evolutionary life - many of which were simply discarded as useless - until he finally tripped into this, the "pinnacle" of all his grandeur - man. I can only assume that you are as unimpressed by this wasteful, bungling, inept cretin of a creator as I would be. This is certainly no creator I want to know, or have anything to do with.

Second, I don't need "proof otherwise". You are committing a teleological fallacy - "Just because we are unique - as far as we know - we must have been created," The former, in no way, dictates the latter, no matter how much you believe it to be so. Thus, since you have failed to even prove creation, you have failed to prove creator.

.

First, your "evidence" is actually further evidence against the existence of a creator. At least, an intelligent, organised one. I mean, think about it. this creator wasted, time, material, and energy

there is a serious disconnect between what is being said and your interpretation - I have only concluded physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence, from that you are extrapolating a creator of the universe that may be construed from the proof derived from physiology but has not been presented by me - I do believe the metaphysical has a ruler or ruling committee chaired or ruled by an Almighty as that is the condition of the physiological presence on Earth that would correspond to conditions before the physical presence became possible.

This is the planet on which we live. If there is a creator, this planet was not created for us.

the metaphysical created the physiology suitable for this planet that gives us a physical presence, how the planet became a part of our solar system has no bearing on its suitability for life as we know it.

it is not unimaginable the metaphysical played a role in the development of the universe nor that other factors were involved.

Okay, first, not to be a grammar nazi, or anything, but "irrelality" isn't even a word. And i am injecting nothing. It is your circular argument that turns in on itself.

irreality is not a matter of grammar - nor is it circular reasoning to think so. your responses are entirely injections of circumspection that exist only in your predetermined state of mind.

 

[Czernobog]

there is a serious disconnect between what is being said and your interpretation - I have only concluded physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence, from that you are extrapolating a creator of the universe that may be construed from the proof derived from physiology but has not been presented by me - I do believe the metaphysical has a ruler or ruling committee chaired or ruled by an Almighty as that is the condition of the physiological presence on Earth that would correspond to conditions before the physical presence became possible.

Except that isn't a conclusion; it is a premise. A conclusion is what one reaches, after testing, and providing objective evidence of a premise. Your premise is that physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence. You have offered n o evidence to support that premise.

This is the planet on which we live. If there is a creator, this planet was not created for us.

the metaphysical created the physiology suitable for this planet that gives us a physical presence, how the planet became a part of our solar system has no bearing on its suitability for life as we know it.

it is not unimaginable the metaphysical played a role in the development of the universe nor that other factors were involved.

Except this planet isn't suitable for our physiology. Everything about this planet is naturally hostile to us, as I deomnstrated.

Okay, first, not to be a grammar nazi, or anything, but "irrelality" isn't even a word. And i am injecting nothing. It is your circular argument that turns in on itself.

irreality is not a matter of grammar - nor is it circular reasoning to think so. your responses are entirely injections of circumspection that exist only in your predetermined state of mind.

Yes it is. Making up nonsense words absolutely is a matter of grammar. Your circular logic wasn't about your made up word. I was just pointing out that making up words doesn't really present you as the most intelligent individual. Your Circular logic is claiming that A creator exists, because it created physiology, so, the existence of physiology proves that a creator exists.

The part I highlighted is your circular argument fallacy.

 

[BreezeWood]

there is a serious disconnect between what is being said and your interpretation - I have only concluded physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence, from that you are extrapolating a creator of the universe that may be construed from the proof derived from physiology but has not been presented by me - I do believe the metaphysical has a ruler or ruling committee chaired or ruled by an Almighty as that is the condition of the physiological presence on Earth that would correspond to conditions before the physical presence became possible.

Except that isn't a conclusion; it is a premise. A conclusion is what one reaches, after testing, and providing objective evidence of a premise. Your premise is that physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence. You have offered n o evidence to support that premise.

This is the planet on which we live. If there is a creator, this planet was not created for us.

the metaphysical created the physiology suitable for this planet that gives us a physical presence, how the planet became a part of our solar system has no bearing on its suitability for life as we know it.

it is not unimaginable the metaphysical played a role in the development of the universe nor that other factors were involved.

Except this planet isn't suitable for our physiology. Everything about this planet is naturally hostile to us, as I deomnstrated.

Okay, first, not to be a grammar nazi, or anything, but "irrelality" isn't even a word. And i am injecting nothing. It is your circular argument that turns in on itself.

irreality is not a matter of grammar - nor is it circular reasoning to think so. your responses are entirely injections of circumspection that exist only in your predetermined state of mind.

Yes it is. Making up nonsense words absolutely is a matter of grammar. Your circular logic wasn't about your made up word. I was just pointing out that making up words doesn't really present you as the most intelligent individual. Your Circular logic is claiming that A creator exists, because it created physiology, so, the existence of physiology proves that a creator exists.

The part I highlighted is your circular argument fallacy.

.
A creator exists, because it created physiology, so, the existence of physiology proves that a creator exists.

your responses are entirely injections of circumspection that exist only in your predetermined state of mind.

you offer a perfect example to my reply - the metaphysical created physiology - - it is your injection believing I have said a "creator" created physiology.

Except that isn't a conclusion; it is a premise. A conclusion is what one reaches, after testing, and providing objective evidence of a premise. Your premise is that physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence. You have offered n o evidence to support that premise.

it is you who have said "I do not know where physiology came from" - and as stated by me that it is a functioning assembly that perishes when its metaphysical component is removed is proof of a component present not associated with the assembly that distinguishes it as a reality, what is an irreality is as you have proclaimed the "brain" is the source for the physiological relevance that in fact bares no responsibility other than an organ necessary for the metaphysical component's use to regulate it's assembly.

 

[Czernobog]

there is a serious disconnect between what is being said and your interpretation - I have only concluded physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence, from that you are extrapolating a creator of the universe that may be construed from the proof derived from physiology but has not been presented by me - I do believe the metaphysical has a ruler or ruling committee chaired or ruled by an Almighty as that is the condition of the physiological presence on Earth that would correspond to conditions before the physical presence became possible.

Except that isn't a conclusion; it is a premise. A conclusion is what one reaches, after testing, and providing objective evidence of a premise. Your premise is that physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence. You have offered n o evidence to support that premise.

This is the planet on which we live. If there is a creator, this planet was not created for us.

the metaphysical created the physiology suitable for this planet that gives us a physical presence, how the planet became a part of our solar system has no bearing on its suitability for life as we know it.

it is not unimaginable the metaphysical played a role in the development of the universe nor that other factors were involved.

Except this planet isn't suitable for our physiology. Everything about this planet is naturally hostile to us, as I demonstrated.

Okay, first, not to be a grammar nazi, or anything, but "irrelality" isn't even a word. And I am injecting nothing. It is your circular argument that turns in on itself.

irreality is not a matter of grammar - nor is it circular reasoning to think so. your responses are entirely injections of circumspection that exist only in your predetermined state of mind.

Yes it is. Making up nonsense words absolutely is a matter of grammar. Your circular logic wasn't about your made up word. I was just pointing out that making up words doesn't really present you as the most intelligent individual. Your Circular logic is claiming that A creator exists, because it created physiology, so, the existence of physiology proves that a creator exists.

The part I highlighted is your circular argument fallacy.

.
A creator exists, because it created physiology, so, the existence of physiology proves that a creator exists.

your responses are entirely injections of circumspection that exist only in your predetermined state of mind.

you offer a perfect example to my reply - the metaphysical created physiology - - it is your injection believing I have said a "creator" created physiology.

Yeah...if "The Metaphysical" created physiology, guess what that makes "The metaphysical". I'll give you a hint it makes it something you keep insisting you didn't say. You just don't want to call your mythical metaphysical a creator, because you think that by not doing so you avoid personifying it, and you make it less mythical. You don't.

Except that isn't a conclusion; it is a premise. A conclusion is what one reaches, after testing, and providing objective evidence of a premise. Your premise is that physiology is created by the metaphysical to give it a physical presence. You have offered n o evidence to support that premise.

it is you who have said "I do not know where physiology came from" - and as stated by me that it is a functioning assembly that perishes when its metaphysical component is removed is proof of a component present not associated with the assembly that distinguishes it as a reality, what is an irreality is as you have proclaimed the "brain" is the source for the physiological relevance that in fact bares no responsibility other than an organ necessary for the metaphysical component's use to regulate it's assembly.

Okay. First, "I don't know" does not dictate something supernatural, or metaphysical. Second, You stating the premise that some metaphysical force created the physical body, and destroyed itself in the process, so no one could find it, is still just a premise. Now the beauty of your premise is that it is no different than the "Supernatural God" of theists. Since God is supernatural - not existing on the "same plane" as the physical world - it is not possible to discover any actual objective evidence for his existence in the natural universe. Similarly your metaphysical creator magically removes all presence of itself at the moment of creations, so it is not possible to actually discover any evidence of its existence. All you have done is create a new version of the unfalsifiable premise. The basis of all rational research, one of the core principles on which the scientific method is built is that any premise must be falsifiable. In other words it must be possible to find evidence to either confirm the premise, or to falsify it. God does not exist is falsifiable. All it requires is objective evidence. The metaphysical exists, and destroys itself at the moment of creation, leaving no trace of evidence of itself behind when it does is not a falsifiable premise. It is a statement of faith no different that any other theist.

And stop using that made up word, irreality! It makes you sound like a moron who is so unintelligent that he is incapable of expressing his positions without making up nonsense words, and it makes it really hard for me to take you seriously!

 

[BreezeWood]

Similarly your metaphysical creator magically removes all presence of itself at the moment of creations, so it is not possible to actually discover any evidence of its existence.

you continue to inject your predetermined conclusion without the least regard for what is being conveyed -

the metaphysical created physiology to give itself a physical presence, the proof of its being is when it leaves the physiology the physiology perishes - that something is what motivates the "brain", the brain is nothing more than an organ for the maintenance of the physiological assembly.

The metaphysical exists, and destroys itself at the moment of creation, leaving no trace of evidence of itself behind when it does is not a falsifiable premise. It is a statement of faith no different that any other theist.

your statement makes no sense at all - the metaphysical created the physiology so it would have a way of existing in a physical state - physiology perishes when the metaphysical is no longer present i.e. mutually dependent state of being. one proves the other ("I do not know where physiology came from").

And stop using that made up word, irreality! It makes you sound like a moron who is so unintelligent that he is incapable of expressing his positions without making up nonsense words, and it makes it really hard for me to take you seriously!

1. irreality - the state of being insubstantial or imaginary; not existing objectively or in fact. unreality.
Irreality - definition of irreality by The Free Dictionary
irreality

you have difficulty in deciphering what is conveyed from your premonition of what is going to be conveyed.

 

[Boss]

The problem with "reason-based" morality and ethics is that it often leads to atrocity. Hitler reasoned it was moral and ethical to exterminate 7 million Jews. Margaret Sanger and others reasoned eugenics was morally and ethically right. Many people today have no problem reasoning it's okay to kill little babies in the womb.

So you'll say, well okay, it's "community-based" reasoning.... but we live in a nation where 75% of the population have Judeo-Christian values, why aren't we adhering to their standards of morality and ethics?

When you do not have accountability for your reasoning in what is moral and ethical, it can take any form you, as a human, can rationalize. In other words, it's absolutely subjective and meaningless.

That's not a problem unique to reason-based morality, so I completely reject your covenient and incorrect characterization.

And reason-based morality is far superior to your "guiding spiritual light" nonsense, as you are merely employing reason-based morality, but with only half the reason.

Again... you must be misunderstanding my purpose in this thread. You seem to think this is about you. That I am somehow compelled to convince you, and failing that, I have failed to accomplish my objective. I'm not here to convince you and don't really give two shits what you reject.

I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature. You cannot compare what you don't believe in. What you're attempting to do is to be antagonistic. btw.. you failed.

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not a problem unique to reason-based morality, so I completely reject your covenient and incorrect characterization.

And reason-based morality is far superior to your "guiding spiritual light" nonsense, as you are merely employing reason-based morality, but with only half the reason.

Again... you must be misunderstanding my purpose in this thread. You seem to think this is about you. That I am somehow compelled to convince you, and failing that, I have failed to accomplish my objective. I'm not here to convince you and don't really give two shits what you reject.

I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature. You cannot compare what you don't believe in. What you're attempting to do is to be antagonistic. btw.. you failed.

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

No, reasoning is not subjective. Premises can be subjective. Reasoning itself follows very strict laws, like mathematics. And some premises are objective fact. And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective. The conclusion is also a fact. I reject your (#9 million in a boring series) attempt to taint everything with an equal, thick brown coat of subjectivity. And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding. Given the large volume of logical errors you make, I have no choice but to wonder if that's just you, believing and living the absurd idea that "reasoning is subjective", while completely oblivious to the fact that you are violating the rules of logic. In fact, I am now sure of this.

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that. I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.


And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations. In fact, you've been a constant source of anti-deterministic, anti-materialistic, and anti-scientific bullshit. You've also tried to fill our gaps in understanding with your "magic, not-magic!" nonsense. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... then it's a magic-believing duck, no matter if it claims it isn't...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not a problem unique to reason-based morality, so I completely reject your covenient and incorrect characterization.

And reason-based morality is far superior to your "guiding spiritual light" nonsense, as you are merely employing reason-based morality, but with only half the reason.

Again... you must be misunderstanding my purpose in this thread. You seem to think this is about you. That I am somehow compelled to convince you, and failing that, I have failed to accomplish my objective. I'm not here to convince you and don't really give two shits what you reject.

I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature. You cannot compare what you don't believe in. What you're attempting to do is to be antagonistic. btw.. you failed.

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

" It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it."

That's right, it's not evidence for anyone but you. Which, of course, means it is not actually evidence at all, in any empirical sense of the word.

 

[Czernobog]

You continue to inject your predetermined conclusion without the least regard for what is being conveyed -

The metaphysical created physiology to give itself a physical presence, the proof of its being is when it leaves the physiology the physiology perishes - that something is what motivates the "brain", the brain is nothing more than an organ for the maintenance of the physiological assembly.

your statement makes no sense at all - the metaphysical created the physiology so it would have a way of existing in a physical state - physiology perishes when the metaphysical is no longer present i.e. mutually dependent state of being. one proves the other ("I do not know where physiology came from").

Okay. So...it is your contention that the "metaphysical" creates a physical body so that it can experience the physical world, and then changes back to "Metaphysical", causing the person that the "Metaphysical" became to die. Aaand...your evidence of this is that we exist? Am I getting this?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You continue to inject your predetermined conclusion without the least regard for what is being conveyed -

The metaphysical created physiology to give itself a physical presence, the proof of its being is when it leaves the physiology the physiology perishes - that something is what motivates the "brain", the brain is nothing more than an organ for the maintenance of the physiological assembly.

your statement makes no sense at all - the metaphysical created the physiology so it would have a way of existing in a physical state - physiology perishes when the metaphysical is no longer present i.e. mutually dependent state of being. one proves the other ("I do not know where physiology came from").

Okay. So...it is your contention that the "metaphysical" creates a physical body so that it can experience the physical world, and then changes back to "Metaphysical", causing the person that the "Metaphysical" became to die. Aaand...your evidence of this is that we exist? Am I getting this?

Good luck, friend. The moment you think you have figured out what he is saying, he will just introduce new definitions for his pretty words. And the definitions will be perfectly true, until they change, because he says so.

 

[Boss]

Again... you must be misunderstanding my purpose in this thread. You seem to think this is about you. That I am somehow compelled to convince you, and failing that, I have failed to accomplish my objective. I'm not here to convince you and don't really give two shits what you reject.

I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature. You cannot compare what you don't believe in. What you're attempting to do is to be antagonistic. btw.. you failed.

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

No, reasoning is not subjective. Premises can be subjective. Reasoning itself follows very strict laws, like mathematics. And some premises are objective fact. And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective. The conclusion is also a fact. I reject your (#9 million in a boring series) attempt to taint everything with an equal, thick brown coat of subjectivity. And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding. Given the large volume of logical errors you make, I have no choice but to wonder if that's just you, believing and living the absurd idea that "reasoning is subjective", while completely oblivious to the fact that you are violating the rules of logic. In fact, I am now sure of this.

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that. I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.


And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations. In fact, you've been a constant source of anti-deterministic, anti-materialistic, and anti-scientific bullshit. You've also tried to fill our gaps in understanding with your "magic, not-magic!" nonsense. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... then it's a magic-believing duck, no matter if it claims it isn't...

Yes, reasoning IS subjective. I even presented several examples to show you that it is. Premises are also subjective. Reasoning doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. Even if it does, it still depends on that individuals interpretation of the rules and laws.

And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective.

Here is where you start to tap dance around your original claim and try to carve out a caveat. You want to "qualify" your reasoning as a certain type, meeting certain predefined criteria. I have no problem saying some things may be objectively reasoned but that wasn't what you claimed. Reasoning is always subjective, even when you claim it is objective it can still be subjective.

And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding.

I'm not trying to wedge anything anywhere. I reason the universe had a spiritual Creator because logic dictates physical nature cannot create itself. You haven't countered that argument. All you can do is say it's "silly nonsense" and deem it "magical bullshit."

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that.

But you haven't taken my word for it. You've mocked and ridiculed me. Said it was all in my head and it's "magical bullshit" or "silly nonsense." Then you told me I didn't have any evidence when I have plenty of evidence. I have all the evidence I need to believe what I believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.

Well yes, it is, but who's peddling here? I have never said you must believe as I do. I'm simply defending what I believe against your mockery and ridicule. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not. I think you're wrong but that's up to you.

And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations.

Again... No, I don't believe in magic. I can't offer you materialistic explanations of something that isn't materialistic. It's like asking for physical evidence of my thoughts. What if I asked you to quantify the percentage difference in the love you have for your mother versus a cheesecake? Can you give me a number? C'mon, give me a materialistic explanation? You see, you can't because love doesn't work that way.

There is no obvious material evidence of anything spiritual or the spiritual thing wouldn't be spiritual. I mean-- I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. It's over and over again in every one of these threads. You Atheists continue to demand something that can't be given. So we're kind of stuck here... You won't believe in God until you have material evidence and that would essentially negate spiritual God.

So Fetch isn't gonna happen, Gretchen!