Why do the God-haters persist?

[G.T.]

Evidence is evidence.

NO! Evidence is NOT evidence! We've covered this in preceding pages. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE! What YOU may view as valid and legitimate evidence for something, I may totally reject as evidence at all. It has a different value to me than it has to you. So evidence is NOT evidence.

This is part of the damn problem with you people, you think YOUR evidence is above reproach and no one can disagree with it. Therefore, it becomes "PROOF" that you have faith in and believe with all your heart, and anyone who disputes you is a "moron" or whatever name you wish to call them.

theres a reason you cut the rest of the quote -

its cuz youre a guy who is even dishonest with himself

and said to yourself:

well, theres this ONE part I can nitpick! cant really address the rest though!




everything you are saying contradicts your original assertion


people can very well accept spiritual evidence if it existed, without believing in the spirit.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Evidence is evidence.

NO! Evidence is NOT evidence! We've covered this in preceding pages. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE! What YOU may view as valid and legitimate evidence for something, I may totally reject as evidence at all. It has a different value to me than it has to you. So evidence is NOT evidence.

This is part of the damn problem with you people, you think YOUR evidence is above reproach and no one can disagree with it. Therefore, it becomes "PROOF" that you have faith in and believe with all your heart, and anyone who disputes you is a "moron" or whatever name you wish to call them.

The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.

 

[Boss]

He's an idiot.

I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point.

And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"

As opposed to I am?

Oh, I dunno gee willickers

Well, no I'm not an idiot... jury is still out on you. Yes, if you believe it is possible you "could be" Irish, then you could logically examine evidence that you "may be" Irish and find it credible without "believing you are Irish". That doesn't refute my point, it makes my point.
If you KNOW for a clinical fact through DNA testing or whatever, that you are absolutely NOT Irish.... then it does not matter if someone shows you shamrocks and lucky charms spewing from your ass, you will not accept it as valid evidence. Nothing they can show you will convince you unless you believe it could be possible first.

The big part?

It doesn't make your point.

You said exactly: if you do not believe something you cannot accept evidence of it.

Be a man. what you said was dumb.

You are deliberately taking what I said out of context so you can prove me wrong. I won't allow it to go unchallenged. In my example (the big part) you say that you believe you "could be" Irish. If you believe you could be Irish, then you can accept evidence you might be Irish. But first it required you to believe that you could be Irish. If you are certain you are not Irish, then you can't accept any evidence you might be Irish. If by some chance you DO, then it means you have modified your original belief that you are certain you're not Irish, and now believe it's possible you could be. It's logically and rationally impossible for you to believe you are not Irish but accept valid evidence you are Irish. Either the original belief has to change or you have to find the evidence to be invalid, both cannot exist at the same time.

 

[Newby]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Says the fucktard moron who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.

The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.

How about his swearing, BrucieBoy? Do you see it in the same light?

It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!

 

[Boss]

The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.

Where did I say all evidence is "equal?" Why the hell do you have to interject things that aren't there? Evidence is subjective, it's always subjective, it doesn't matter if it's science or justice.

Again, I give you the OJ trial... the prosecution didn't spend all that time making a case against OJ with evidence it viewed as invalid, they certainly believed their evidence was proof he committed the crime or they wouldn't have brought the case to court. The jury heard the evidence, along with a large chunk of the nation. In the end, the jury did not view the evidence the same as the prosecution and found OJ not guilty. Many people who viewed the exact same evidence across the nation were shocked because they found the evidence to be valid and credible and thought OJ should have been found guilty.

Was the evidence "equal" in that case? Was all evidence, evidence? Or was the evidence SUBJECTIVE.... (meaning subject to personal evaluation, in case you're illiterate.)

 

[G.T.]

wowwwwww

 

[G.T.]

"Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point. " - Boss

Your quote. You own it. It is factually stupid.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Says the fucktard moron who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.

The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.

How about his swearing, BrucieBoy? Do you see it in the same light?

It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!

He was deliberately using the word Boss had used against him.
Not an excuse, but it was quoting back what he had received first.
You can look it up!
Do you think I made up the Fruits of the Spirit?
That explains a lot!

 

[Montrovant]

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Says the fucktard moron who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.

The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.

How about his swearing, BrucieBoy? Do you see it in the same light?

It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!

Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own. Or did you somehow miss his previous post? I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.

Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him? Imagine that? Hypocrisy!

 

[Montrovant]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

Perhaps, if you were consistent in saying that a person must believe something is possible, rather than just believe in something, this entire issue could be avoided.

Then again, considering you refuse to accept anyone who says they believe something is possible yet don't believe it to be true, at least if they are things you believe in, maybe this never could be avoided.

 

[thebrucebeat]

The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.

Where did I say all evidence is "equal?" Why the hell do you have to interject things that aren't there? Evidence is subjective, it's always subjective, it doesn't matter if it's science or justice.

Again, I give you the OJ trial... the prosecution didn't spend all that time making a case against OJ with evidence it viewed as invalid, they certainly believed their evidence was proof he committed the crime or they wouldn't have brought the case to court. The jury heard the evidence, along with a large chunk of the nation. In the end, the jury did not view the evidence the same as the prosecution and found OJ not guilty. Many people who viewed the exact same evidence across the nation were shocked because they found the evidence to be valid and credible and thought OJ should have been found guilty.

Was the evidence "equal" in that case? Was all evidence, evidence? Or was the evidence SUBJECTIVE.... (meaning subject to personal evaluation, in case you're illiterate.)

You equate peoples judgment with the quality of evidence.
False equivalency.
Same thing with the evidence you give for spirituality.
You equate the evaluation of the "evidence" with its quality. People believe it so it must be true.

 

[Newby]

Says the fucktard moron who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.

The name calling is really your special stock in trade.
So all evidence is subjective and equal?
There goes our justice system, as well as all disciplines of science.

How about his swearing, BrucieBoy? Do you see it in the same light?

It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!

Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own. Or did you somehow miss his previous post? I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.

Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him? Imagine that? Hypocrisy!

Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?

 

[thebrucebeat]

How about his swearing, BrucieBoy? Do you see it in the same light?

It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!

Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own. Or did you somehow miss his previous post? I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.

Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him? Imagine that? Hypocrisy!

Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?

Nice backpedal.
Noted.

 

[daws101]

You look up into the sky and see a moon there. Billions of people have seen it too. Scientists have confirmed it is there and exists. We've sent rockets there and men have set foot on it. Is that authority of the masses ploy as well? What if I tell you the moon is not there? It's an illusion from God? That your so-called "physical evidence" is an "authority of the masses ploy" and not evidence?

Show me the spiritual evidence for anything you think is proven to exist in the physical world, or I will tell you it's an illusion put there by God to make you think it exists. Now, I MUST be speaking the TRUTH because you can't show me any spiritual evidence and you can't refute my argument with spiritual evidence.

Game--set--match!

FALSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD .......

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God. We're here, we exist. The universe is here, it exists. Logic and physics work.

Our 'minds', 'souls', 'spirit' and consciousness are all physical in nature. Thousands of years of research have shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. Souls and spirits do not exist. Our bodies run themselves. We know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. Our innermost self is our biochemical self.

Bwhahahaha... THOUSANDS of years, dawsy? Really? You do realize that only a few HUNDRED years ago, your precious scientists all mutually agreed our 'essence of true self' came from the heart and not the brain, right? The research regarding chemical reactions in the brain is less than 75 years old.

You're all over the board with this, first you start by stating that our spirit and soul are physical in nature, but before you finish your paragraph, they do not exist. Now, in YOUR case, you're probably correct, YOUR "biochemical self" is probably copious amounts of methamphetamines working on your atrophied brain to produce random thoughts that don't comport with logic and reason. That would certainly explain your profound stupidity on this and many other topics.

“Human and animal mental processes look just as they can be expected to look if there is no soul or other immaterial component.”
Prof. Victor Stenger (2007)

Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism

rationalizing in 5....4...3...2..1

Yes, well, someone needs to introduce some rationality to this idiot, that's for certain. Did this moron not notice that humans have the capacity to rationalize right from wrong and react on that, while other animals react on primal instinct alone? Victor must be hittin' the meth pipe too.

oh oh, the false and haggard you're on drugs ploy...ironic coming an alcoholic..
funnier still ....is the desperation in your writing ...means your nuts are in a vice...

 

[daws101]

Nothing is "proven" except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe.

As we see, retard dawsy has a little problem with his reading comprehension skills.

false boosy is dodging :THE SECTION BOOSY LEFT OUT : "in any intellectual field except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems"
colorizing your shit does not make it any less false...

Well, I did not copy and paste my remarks from a third-party source like you did. In my own words, I said: except mathematics, and even that is only proven in our current understanding of reality in our known universe. You somehow deduce it is a "gotchya" moment because your copy-n-paste definition says: except for Mathematics, and even their proofs are relative to localized systems.

I'm not sure if you are comprehending this, but "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing. I mean, it's not identical, but mine is my own words and yours is a copy/paste from someone smarter than you.

false! more tantruming....
odd that "your" words are an exact word for word quote just be caused you memorized them does not make them yours...
hers another example of you misrepresenting for your own "Theory" : "relative to localized systems" and "reality in our known universe" are practically the same thing."
boosy

ah no they are not .....you've reinvented what localized systems are to fit your nonsense in the same way you attempted to bullshit that hot water is not hot by using the impracticable faux comparison that since it's not as hot as the sun it's not hot..
as to you being smarter than I Am....truly smart people do not need to proclaim they are...they just are....
also, making word soup as you do is more evidence of your denseness..
truly smart people are direct and choose the right words even if they are not theirs.
anyone can yammer and you have a black belt in yammering...

 

[daws101]

Too rich!! Cannot comment, laughing too hard and cleaning the beer from my monitor!

I knew you were an alcoholic..thanks for proving to everyone!

Ha! He's a drunk. That explains a lot!!!!

my dad was too so boosy was easy to spot...bet he drinks the cheap shit too..

 

[daws101]

People who hate God and many here on this board does fear judgment for the things they do. Hedonism.

judgement by who?....the after you're dead sky daddy. seems like that's counter productive since you've already done all the sinning.
thought the commandments and other rules of religion...were to prevent sinning.
or as they used to the horse is already out of the barn...

 

[daws101]

I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.

That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.

I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until then,

Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.

But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.

hey guys is this karma or what..."some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say..."boosy
here boosy is doing exactly the same ******* thing he claims to hate....
pretty stupid for the self proclaimed smartest kid in class.

 

[daws101]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

really captain mellodrama!
if you were so right then your shit would stand up to the scrutiny and criticism it's getting...
it's you who's running around like his ass is on fire to defended your bullshit.

 

[Montrovant]

How about his swearing, BrucieBoy? Do you see it in the same light?

It's like you make the rules as you go along, telling everyone how they should conduct themselves and what behavior is acceptable... sort of what you idiots accuse Christians of supposedly doing... Imagine that? Hypocrisy, I love it!

Except, of course, for the important distinction that I was repeating Boss's insult back at him, rather than deciding to insult him on my own. Or did you somehow miss his previous post? I went ahead and put it in bold for you, so you can see.

Or do you make the rules as you go along, letting Boss insult people whenever he wants and only finding fault when someone repeats his own words back at him? Imagine that? Hypocrisy!

Yeah, cause all you guys taking him on have been so polite and respectful to him this entire time, right?

Yeah, cause I'm 'all you guys', right?

When you find an instance of me insulting Boss prior to him insulting me in this thread, I'll apologize immediately.

As far as I know, however, all the insults have begun with him. I have only responded to them.

But go ahead and get upset with me repeating his own insults back at him and talk about how hypocritical someone is for not being as upset with that as with the original insults, while at the same time you praise Boss's posts and never take issue when he's the one who decides to start resorting to insults. It's amusing.