Which Child Tells the World Her Life Has Been Stolen?

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You only heard about sky daddy BECAUSE of Religions, shakespeare...and because youre feeling free to re-write "what skydaddy means to me" ...does not somehow make an irrational belief a rational one...but plus ten for taking creative liberty there.

True enough I became familiar the with concept of God through religious institutions but my quest to investigate this "God" fellow did not end with a Sunday school teaching session as you can see.

Your "rational" beliefs seem quite irrational to me and philosophy, logic, metaphysics and science (yes, that's right, science) have all led me to conclude the cosmos aren't like a old '55 Nash Rambler you find quite inexplicably in a mountain cave with
no reason for being there.

Somebody put it there. Think about it.

 

[G.T.]

You only heard about sky daddy BECAUSE of Religions, shakespeare...and because youre feeling free to re-write "what skydaddy means to me" ...does not somehow make an irrational belief a rational one...but plus ten for taking creative liberty there.

True enough I became familiar the with concept of God through religious institutions but my quest to investigate this "God" fellow did not end with a Sunday school teaching session as you can see.

Your "rational" beliefs seem quite irrational to me and philosophy, logic, metaphysics and science (yes, that's right, science) have all led me to conclude the cosmos aren't like a old '55 Nash Rambler you find quite inexplicably in a mountain cave with
no reason for being there.

Somebody put it there. Think about it.

Thats not rational ^ thats begging the question and an argument from ignorance.

 

[BULLDOG]

How creepy is it that poor kid was trained like an animal and sent out to perform for a breathless lefty media who just couldn't get enough?

How creepy is it for hateful right wingers to make an accusation like that. The right has become so vile and hateful till uncalled for nasty remarks like that are common place.

What's "hateful" about not wanting a child to be used as a political prop?

The accusation is hateful. The only evidence you have for that claim is that you don't like what she says,

She entered the political arena to lecture us.
So she’s a dumbass stooge.

You should pay attention to the lecture. Your ignorance doesn't make you one of the cool kids.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Like Hogg, she’ll be living in the streets doing crack.

Hopefully.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Thats not rational ^ thats begging the question and an argument from ignorance.

Well that's what you say. I'm not here to change your mind.

 

[G.T.]

Thats not rational ^ thats begging the question and an argument from ignorance.

Well that's what you say. I'm not here to change your mind.

I knowwit!

 

[toobfreak]

In this country really evil are school shooters. If only Republicans would stop arming them.

All the school shooters have been school children shooting up their leftist-run government classrooms in protest, armed by their sloppy leftist parents.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I knowwit!

Lots of scientists have found God is the only answer to the things they have discovered. I'm no scientist but purely on a logical and empirical level I find their conclusions persuasive.

 

[Obiwan]

How creepy is it that poor kid was trained like an animal and sent out to perform for a breathless lefty media who just couldn't get enough?

How creepy is it for hateful right wingers to make an accusation like that. The right has become so vile and hateful till uncalled for nasty remarks like that are common place.

What's "hateful" about not wanting a child to be used as a political prop?

She’s not a prop, she’s the Lefts scientific expert.

She is a pretty effective young speaker.

She's been proven to have mental issues, so of course the libs have to be in complete agreement with her...

That says it all...

 

[Crixus]

View attachment 281349

The Left love creating fictional boogeymen so they don’t have to confront real evil.

A spoiled rich white one who has not seen any of the world beyound the window of her parents limo or private jet.

 

[G.T.]

I knowwit!

Lots of scientists have found God is the only answer to the things they have discovered. I'm no scientist but purely on a logical and empirical level I find their conclusions persuasive.

Its special pleading since lots of scientists also DONT believe...and so youre taking your bias and using it to appeal to the authority of science without recognizing that its an illogical appeal since scientists are also non believers.

That first sentence, too, was an argument from ignorance. "Cant think of another explanation therefore God."

That's not logic, it's irrational.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Its special pleading since lots of scientists also DONT believe...and so youre taking your bias and using it to appeal to the authority of science without recognizing that its an illogical appeal since scientists are also non believers.

Michio Kaku Clears Up God Discovery
Not all beliefs or non believers are equal. Most scientist just dogmatically reject God out of hand without any thought at all.

Some brilliant scientists though have given the matter much thought and find a reason to believe. I find their conclusions
are usually based on the patterns and order they find in the universe rather than just an automatic bigoted refusal to consider what they find.
Here is one brilliant man who found it impossible to ignore what he discovered. Stephen Meyer
I find carefully considered thought to be better than dogmatic ignorance. Don't you?

That first sentence, too, was an argument from ignorance. "Cant think of another explanation therefore God."

That's not logic, it's irrational.

That's quite right. I can't think of a better explanation for the universe than God.
When you bring me a better alternative I will give it all my attention.

 

[G.T.]

Its special pleading since lots of scientists also DONT believe...and so youre taking your bias and using it to appeal to the authority of science without recognizing that its an illogical appeal since scientists are also non believers.

Michio Kaku Clears Up God Discovery
Not all beliefs or non believers are equal. Most scientist just dogmatically reject God out of hand without any thought at all.

Some brilliant scientists though have given the matter much thought and find a reason to believe. I find their conclusions
are usually based on the patterns and order they find in the universe rather than just an automatic bigoted refusal to consider what they find.
Here is one brilliant man who found it impossible to ignore what he discovered. Stephen Meyer

That first sentence, too, was an argument from ignorance. "Cant think of another explanation therefore God."

That's not logic, it's irrational.

That's quite right. I can't think of a better explanation for the universe than God.
When you bring me a better alternative I will give it all my attention.

You just admitted to arguing from ignorance.That's, not rational, you can google why (try Stanford), and you also presented the argument from complexity, sometimes referred to as the watchmaker's argument, which is adequatly debunked as a power-weilding argument(also available on google).

Kaku has a really in-depth interview thats like two hours long clarifying his position on "god" as "he doesnt know," and that it "depends on what the person asking him means by god," because if theyre one of the folks using their own pet definitions and by "god" they merely mean "nature," then he just assumes call it nature but hes fine with that god as long as they know theyre just redefining what mankind colloquially refers to as god.

In other words, a vacuous redefining of the term doesnt isnt actually going to compel anyone to believe anything.

And youve already proven you arent properly skeptical... you believe for poorly thought out reasons such as the watchmaler argument and the argument from ignorance.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You just admitted to arguing from ignorance.That's, not rational, you can google why (try Stanford), and you also presented the argument from complexity, sometimes referred to as the watchmaker's argument, which is adequatly debunked as a power-weilding argument(also available on google).

I simply don't accept these philosophical parlor games. Neither does Dr. Stephen Meyer and I don't accept anyone's opinion of an argument on their say so when they have a dog in that fight.
Start a thread on the watchmaker's argument. See what happens.

A design does imply a designer and the works of Darwin, which have been largely debunked,
have been cited as something that disproves the Watchmaker argument. Debunking Evolution - Scientific evidence against evolution - Clash between theory and reality
There's a good starting point why I don't accept your argument.

Kaku has a really in-depth interview thats like two hours long clarifying his position on "god" as "he doesnt know," and that it "depends on what the person asking him means by god," because if theyre one of the folks using their own pet definitions and by "god" they merely mean "nature," then he just assumes call it nature but hes fine with that god as long as they know theyre just redefining what mankind colloquially refers to as god.

In other words, a vacuous redefining of the term doesnt isnt actually going to compel anyone to believe anything.

It won't compel you, anyway.
Kaku has the same definition of God as Albert Einstein.: an impersonal supreme force that lends order and structure to the cosmos. I accept that definition of God.

And youve already proven you arent properly skeptical... you believe for poorly thought out reasons such as the watchmaler argument and the argument from ignorance.

I already said I'm not here to convince you of anything.

 

[G.T.]

You just admitted to arguing from ignorance.That's, not rational, you can google why (try Stanford), and you also presented the argument from complexity, sometimes referred to as the watchmaker's argument, which is adequatly debunked as a power-weilding argument(also available on google).

I simply don't accept these philosophical parlor games. Neither does Dr. Stephen Meyer and I don't accept anyone's opinion of an argument on their say so when they have a dog in that fight.
Start a thread on the watchmaker's argument. See what happens.

Kaku has a really in-depth interview thats like two hours long clarifying his position on "god" as "he doesnt know," and that it "depends on what the person asking him means by god," because if theyre one of the folks using their own pet definitions and by "god" they merely mean "nature," then he just assumes call it nature but hes fine with that god as long as they know theyre just redefining what mankind colloquially refers to as god.

In other words, a vacuous redefining of the term doesnt isnt actually going to compel anyone to believe anything.

It won't compel you, anyway.
Kaku has the same definition of God as Albert Einstein.: an impersonal supreme force that lends order and structure to the cosmos. I accept that definition of God.

And youve already proven you arent properly skeptical... you believe for poorly thought out reasons such as the watchmaler argument and the argument from ignorance.

I already said I'm not here to convince you of anything.

You sure arent!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You sure arent!

Of course I will present a general counter argument if convenient but it isn't my goal to talk you out of your opinions.
Life is too short.

 

[G.T.]

You sure arent!

Of course I will present a general counter argument if convenient but it isn't my goal to talk you out of your opinions.
Life is too short.

Its alright, I wasnt calling you out for trying to convince me.

Life is weird, belief in deities automatically precludes me from even wanting to engage in a meaningful discussion on the subject, with a person. I honestly discount them for lack of depth before the thing can even start, because Ive seen and watched thousands of hours and attempts at rationalizations on the subject and theres glaring holes in every last one of the arguments.. or else we'd see a nobel prize and there'd no longer be a debate.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How creepy is it that poor kid was trained like an animal and sent out to perform for a breathless lefty media who just couldn't get enough?

More than "trained," she's a true believer. Sad that she has no hope at her age.

An Australian boy was so convinced of global warming that he believed millions would die if he drank a glass of water. He was admitted to the hospital suffering from climate change DELUSION. Just like poor Greta.
Climate change takes a mental toll - The Boston Globe

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Its alright, I wasnt calling you out for trying to convince me.

Life is weird, belief in deities automatically precludes me from even wanting to engage in a meaningful discussion on the subject, with a person. I honestly discount them for lack of depth before the thing can even start, because Ive seen and watched thousands of hours and attempts at rationalizations on the subject and theres glaring holes in every last one of the arguments.. or else we'd see a nobel prize and there'd no longer be a debate.

It all comes down to belief. Belief in God or belief there is no God. There is no absolute proof one way or the other but one view must be correct.

 

[G.T.]

Its alright, I wasnt calling you out for trying to convince me.

Life is weird, belief in deities automatically precludes me from even wanting to engage in a meaningful discussion on the subject, with a person. I honestly discount them for lack of depth before the thing can even start, because Ive seen and watched thousands of hours and attempts at rationalizations on the subject and theres glaring holes in every last one of the arguments.. or else we'd see a nobel prize and there'd no longer be a debate.

It all comes down to belief. Belief in God or belief there is no God. There is no absolute proof one way or the other but one view must be correct.

Well, for me it doesn't come down to belief, it comes down to properly forming your beliefs. Whereas, when you say "there is no absolute proof one way or the other," to me, if one wants to be rational after admitting that - then their "belief" is not believing either way at all. Many call that Agnosticism, or soft atheism. I call it honesty.

When we don't have proof of something, to me, that's reason enough not to form a belief around said thing and I call that proper skepticism.