Discussion:
MORE ATHEIST NONSENSE
Add Reply
Joe Bruno
2017-04-19 23:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
me (Joe Bruno change)

4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Davej
2017-04-20 00:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
A***@yahoo.com
2017-04-20 03:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
5:23 PMDavej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.


You haven't proven any of these claims.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-20 07:22:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
5:23 PMDavej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
You haven't proven any of these claims.
Assroid, it is so obvious that you can do the proof yourself....
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 15:09:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by A***@yahoo.com
5:23 PMDavej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
You haven't proven any of these claims.
Assroid, it is so obvious that you can do the proof yourself....
No, he can't. He isn't smart enough. First off, he kills whatever argument he has by refusing to say what religion he is. I'm starting to wonder if Johnboi has any religion at all but what he picks and chooses. All his arguments come from creationist websites and he still believes in Ron Wyatt. Maybe Ron Wyatt IS his religion. That's pathetic.
Tim
2017-04-20 09:58:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
5:23 PMDavej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
You haven't proven any of these claims.
You never prove yours. You just let the science, which shows your claims to be wrong, get you emotional.
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 15:01:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
5:23 PMDavej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
You haven't proven any of these claims.
You've done this for us. You are one of the most gullible trolls there is.
You're afraid to check out anything but creationist websites. And you've
admitted that you chose whatever your religion is when you were a teenager.
Therefore, you stopped thinking for yourself once you picked out your belief system. Plus, your knowledge of science is also non-existent as is your knowledge of history. This is very common in fundie trolls like you. You're
barely smart enough to know what will annoy people which doesn't do you a bit of good. And, you've started lying. No one believes that you've been to Turkey.
And, the way things are going over there, you probably never will go there.
Your "Why do you feel that way?" was seen through long ago. And your monkey to
man nonsense is another obvious annoyance lie. This is all stuff that you
aren't smart enough to think of yourself, which is why you use it for so long.
You're waiting for some creationist non-thinking tank to come up with a new
annoyance idea. And, that's why you're a pity troll.
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 14:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Davej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
My guess is that ArtieJoe is stupid and dishonest. That means he'll never
learn anything new, but will still believe that he is never wrong.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-21 21:57:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Davej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
My guess is that ArtieJoe is stupid and dishonest. That means he'll never
learn anything new, but will still believe that he is never wrong.
I still think he is a troll and knows exactly what he is doing and why.
He is being ridiculous for the purpose of making people engage in stupid conversations and trying to set the agenda instead of us doing so.
The sad thing to me is that we seem to let him and the others, like aaa (who at least has some entertainment value) or JTEM and Bob.
Don Martin
2017-04-21 22:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Davej
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
I don't think "retarded" is the proper diagnosis. There is now
such a religious industry of deception and alternate facts that it
is difficult to guess if they are stupid, dishonest, or deceived.
My guess is that ArtieJoe is stupid and dishonest. That means he'll never
learn anything new, but will still believe that he is never wrong.
That is probably the most dangerous belief of all.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-20 00:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Mad Joe, just one question you refuse to answer: "There is no reason for scientists to do research work if their god provides the answers, right?"
Saint Else Ware
2017-04-20 00:59:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Mad Joe, just one question you refuse to answer: "There is no reason for scientists to do research work if their god provides the answers, right?"
How else can they check verify what he says unless they do. Science will go through the roof with him telling them things that will advance their understanding 3 to 500 years ...
b***@m.nu
2017-04-20 01:59:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:23:51 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
Oh lookie the retarded theist wants to use false information to get
attention.

Einstein had no belief in a personal god here defined on goggle

A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of
as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the
"Ground of Being"

In other words the idea of what you have of a god and any religious
site has of a god is NOT what Einstein meant. So no your religious
website lies and you just suck it up as law because you are an
indigent fucktard that is a theist and therefore by default a fucking
retard

as far as the rest of the list NONE can be used because of the fear
the churches put into the world, either believe or be tortured and
die.... YOU RETARDED MORON. There are you getting the attention that
you so badly want?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-20 02:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much evidence as ever, none.
Saint Else Ware
2017-04-20 02:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much evidence as ever, none.
except that surveillance footage you are withholding you mean ...
default
2017-04-20 09:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much evidence as ever, none.
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.

Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-20 14:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because
Know, not just think.
Post by default
Post by Cloud Hobbit
some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary
god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much
evidence as ever, none.
Believing in a god when everybody was raised theist, and losing that
belief was a punishable heresy, did not make them creationist.

In fact, many (if not most) revised their religious beliefs to
accommodate what they discovered.

Which has been pointed out to Mad Joe over and over again - only for
him to take no notice and keep repeating the same old unsolicited
bullshit in a place where he has no reason even to be.

If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Post by default
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Religion makes people stupid.
Post by default
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
He took the trouble to explain what he meant by the term - it was the
underlying physics of the universe. And he didn't treat it like a god.

As with Spinoza, it was all there was that remained after the
supernatural had been removed but he couldn't let go of the idea.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 14:44:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because
Know, not just think.
Post by default
Post by Cloud Hobbit
some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary
god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much
evidence as ever, none.
Believing in a god when everybody was raised theist, and losing that
belief was a punishable heresy, did not make them creationist.
In fact, many (if not most) revised their religious beliefs to
accommodate what they discovered.
Which has been pointed out to Mad Joe over and over again - only for
him to take no notice and keep repeating the same old unsolicited
bullshit in a place where he has no reason even to be.
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Post by default
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Religion makes people stupid.
Post by default
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
He took the trouble to explain what he meant by the term - it was the
underlying physics of the universe. And he didn't treat it like a god.
HORSEDUNG. FROM WIKIPEDIA:


Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4]
b***@m.nu
2017-04-20 21:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because
Know, not just think.
Post by default
Post by Cloud Hobbit
some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary
god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much
evidence as ever, none.
Believing in a god when everybody was raised theist, and losing that
belief was a punishable heresy, did not make them creationist.
In fact, many (if not most) revised their religious beliefs to
accommodate what they discovered.
Which has been pointed out to Mad Joe over and over again - only for
him to take no notice and keep repeating the same old unsolicited
bullshit in a place where he has no reason even to be.
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Post by default
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Religion makes people stupid.
Post by default
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
He took the trouble to explain what he meant by the term - it was the
underlying physics of the universe. And he didn't treat it like a god.
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4]
keep digging... As soon as you realize that No one said that he was an
atheist then maybe you will figure something out.

On a side note: It would not matter if Einstein ran for pope, the fact
is you are still an idiot that tries to justify you support of murder
by trying to place blame elsewhere
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-20 23:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@m.nu
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:44:06 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because
Know, not just think.
Post by default
Post by Cloud Hobbit
some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary
god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much
evidence as ever, none.
Believing in a god when everybody was raised theist, and losing that
belief was a punishable heresy, did not make them creationist.
In fact, many (if not most) revised their religious beliefs to
accommodate what they discovered.
Which has been pointed out to Mad Joe over and over again - only for
him to take no notice and keep repeating the same old unsolicited
bullshit in a place where he has no reason even to be.
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Post by default
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Religion makes people stupid.
Post by default
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
He took the trouble to explain what he meant by the term - it was the
underlying physics of the universe. And he didn't treat it like a god.
Mad Joe repeats the same old bullshit which has been dealt with, again
and again.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Joe Bruno
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often
misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic
God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who
Mad Joe pretends he doesn't understand that neither Einstein nor
Spinoza worshipped the universe as a god.

He snipped the bit where I pointed this out.

Spinoza called God the universe, not vice vaersa, because when you
start with God and remove all the supernatural, the magic, the stuff
that simply didn't or doesn't happen, you are left with the universe.

He also pretends he doesn't understand that the Rabbinate of the day
called Spinoza an atheist.
Post by b***@m.nu
Post by Joe Bruno
concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which
he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4]
keep digging... As soon as you realize that No one said that he was an
atheist then maybe you will figure something out.
He's too stupid to understand that nobody cares whether he was atheist
or theist - it's his science that counts.

But don't forget, Einstein lived at a time when most people thought an
atheist was the theist's misrepresentation, and even in the 1950s this
was when Eisenhower had equated atheism and communism in the American
mind.

By the popular usage definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic", most
atheists aren't atheist and most agnostics aren't agnostic - because
Mad Joe knows perfectly well that they rest on theistic presumptions
which don't even apply outside the theist's religion.
Post by b***@m.nu
On a side note: It would not matter if Einstein ran for pope, the fact
is you are still an idiot that tries to justify you support of murder
by trying to place blame elsewhere
Like far too many Americans, Mad Joe assigns people to labels and
addresses the label, rather than their actual positiions.

Its easy, but far too often it gets things wrong.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 23:11:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 4:07:22 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:


https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 17:03:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because
Know, not just think.
Post by default
Post by Cloud Hobbit
some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary
god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much
evidence as ever, none.
Believing in a god when everybody was raised theist, and losing that
belief was a punishable heresy, did not make them creationist.
In fact, many (if not most) revised their religious beliefs to
accommodate what they discovered.
Which has been pointed out to Mad Joe over and over again - only for
him to take no notice and keep repeating the same old unsolicited
bullshit in a place where he has no reason even to be.
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Post by default
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Religion makes people stupid.
Post by default
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
He took the trouble to explain what he meant by the term - it was the
underlying physics of the universe. And he didn't treat it like a god.
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4]
You only checked one definition on one website. I checked several websites before choosing one that had several definitions that agreed with each other
from various sources. You are so limited. Einstein believed in the Universe
(nature) being everything and that he was awed by its immensity. No god was
involved. Some pantheists believe that the Universe is 'God' and others that
'God' is both in and out of the Universe. Some even believe in a self- aware
'God'. Einstein didn't. He, like most Pantheists, was what is currently called
a Scientific Pantheist. No god is involved at all - just the Universe. That
is what causes the confusion. Many Pantheists consider the Universe to be an
unaware God consisting of Universal laws. Einstein believed in the laws but not the god. To all intents and purposes, he really was an atheistic Pantheist.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-21 17:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:03:23 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because
Know, not just think.
Post by default
Post by Cloud Hobbit
some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary
god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much
evidence as ever, none.
Believing in a god when everybody was raised theist, and losing that
belief was a punishable heresy, did not make them creationist.
In fact, many (if not most) revised their religious beliefs to
accommodate what they discovered.
Which has been pointed out to Mad Joe over and over again - only for
him to take no notice and keep repeating the same old unsolicited
bullshit in a place where he has no reason even to be.
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Post by default
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Religion makes people stupid.
Post by default
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
He took the trouble to explain what he meant by the term - it was the
underlying physics of the universe. And he didn't treat it like a god.
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often
misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic
God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who
concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which
he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4]
1. Spinoza didn't worship the universe as God. When he said God was
the universe, that was all that remained after the supernatural
baggage was removed. He didn't mean that the universe was God.

2. The Rabbinate of the day called Spinoza an atheist.

3. Mad Joe assigns labels to people as some kind of least-bad fit and
then imagines the result actually describes them, instead of trying to
understand their position.

4. Einstein probably believed the common usage definitions of the word
"atheist", but in any case he lived at a time when everybody was
supposed to be theist and those who weren't were distrusted pariahs.
Post by hypatiab7
You only checked one definition on one website. I checked several websites
before choosing one that had several definitions that agreed with each other
from various sources. You are so limited. Einstein believed in the Universe
(nature) being everything and that he was awed by its immensity. No god was
involved. Some pantheists believe that the Universe is 'God' and others that
'God' is both in and out of the Universe. Some even believe in a self- aware
'God'. Einstein didn't. He, like most Pantheists, was what is currently called
a Scientific Pantheist. No god is involved at all - just the Universe. That
is what causes the confusion. Many Pantheists consider the Universe to be an
unaware God consisting of Universal laws. Einstein believed in the laws but
not the god. To all intents and purposes, he really was an atheistic Pantheist.
There's a FAQ which Mad Joe has repeatedly ignored.....

It is extracted and annotated from the Einstein original at...

http://web.archive.org/web/20160410165540/http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm

"This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49.
The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological
Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years,
New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from
Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the
Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to
the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941."


"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their
conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional
endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any
considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of
religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is
rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious
feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone
who is entirely without it, especially as there is no
anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."

===> It takes an exceptional individual to rise beyond an
anthropomorphic concept of God.

===> Very difficult to elucidate the feeling of cosmic awe to anyone
who is entirely without it because there is no anthropomorphic
conception of God corresponding to it.

"The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the
sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature
and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a
sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single
significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling
already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of
the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we
have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer,
contains a much stronger element of this."

===> Those two paragraphs clarify what Einstein calls his religious
beliefs were. The sort of thing he describes elsewhere as his
awe for the wonders of the universe.

In short, his references to "Spinoza's God". He is in awe of it.
Nowhere does he say he worships it. Which would be silly because
it's not a personal God.

And while we feel the same awe, it would never occur to us to
call it "God".

The only people who do, can't throw off the language of the
belief they grew up with.

"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this
kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived
in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central
teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics
of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind
of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their
contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in
this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are
closely akin to one another."

===> Kind of religious feeling, no dogma and no God conceived in
man's image.

"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to
another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no
theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and
science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are
receptive to it."

===> No definite notion of a God and no theology.

"We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to
religion very different from the usual one. When one views the
matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and
religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious
reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal
operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the
idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided,
of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really
seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little
for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is
inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are
determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's
eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is
responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been
charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's
ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education,
and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hopes of reward after death."

===> He's describing the traditional religionist view of science.

Now he describes how he sees it in terms of his own "religious"
views. His cosmological religious feeling. His awe for the
wonders of the universe:

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves
are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist
between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.
Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has,
nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what
means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued
with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there
also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid
for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to
reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that
profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

===> I don't like his saying that the sort of feeling towards the
universe that scientists have, springs from religion. Because
it doesn't.

His use of the words religion and God have convinced the hard of
thinking that he was something he wasn't.

But given his painstaking explanation of what he means by the
words, I suppose we can't blame him.

No scientist I know has "profound faith". But again he's using
the word in a different way religionists do.

I wish Einstein and others didn't use this kind of religious
language. It means that believers with an axe to grind always
get his views wrong.

But it has to be remembered that this address was to a
theological seminary. So he had to use religious language to
get his point across.

When read in the original context, it is blatantly obvious that
the Liars For God who produce the books of mined quotes are
totally twisting he said and meant.

He was not talking about what is generally understood by
religion - let alone about their religion.
b***@m.nu
2017-04-22 02:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:03:23 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because
Know, not just think.
Post by default
Post by Cloud Hobbit
some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary
god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much
evidence as ever, none.
Believing in a god when everybody was raised theist, and losing that
belief was a punishable heresy, did not make them creationist.
In fact, many (if not most) revised their religious beliefs to
accommodate what they discovered.
Which has been pointed out to Mad Joe over and over again - only for
him to take no notice and keep repeating the same old unsolicited
bullshit in a place where he has no reason even to be.
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Post by default
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Religion makes people stupid.
Post by default
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
He took the trouble to explain what he meant by the term - it was the
underlying physics of the universe. And he didn't treat it like a god.
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4]
You only checked one definition on one website. I checked several websites before choosing one that had several definitions that agreed with each other
from various sources. You are so limited. Einstein believed in the Universe
(nature) being everything and that he was awed by its immensity. No god was
involved. Some pantheists believe that the Universe is 'God' and others that
'God' is both in and out of the Universe. Some even believe in a self- aware
'God'. Einstein didn't. He, like most Pantheists, was what is currently called
a Scientific Pantheist. No god is involved at all - just the Universe. That
is what causes the confusion. Many Pantheists consider the Universe to be an
unaware God consisting of Universal laws. Einstein believed in the laws but not the god. To all intents and purposes, he really was an atheistic Pantheist.
I told it a few days ago that it needs to do a far better job with his
data collection, I hope it get the point this time
aaa
2017-04-20 14:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 15:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
Don't waste time arguing with Chrissie. He's a chronic LIAR:Here is the evidence:

https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
aaa
2017-04-20 15:45:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
I'm just having fun to poking holes in his atheist belief. :-)
Smiler
2017-04-21 00:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore,
the so called conflict between science and religion is entirely
man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their version of
scientific philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to
promote the atheist godless philosophy.
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
I'm just having fun to poking holes in his atheist belief. :-)
What belief is that, liar?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-21 01:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore,
the so called conflict between science and religion is entirely
man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their version of
scientific philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to
promote the atheist godless philosophy.
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Mad Joe does not know what constitutes evidence.
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
I'm just having fun to poking holes in his atheist belief. :-)
What belief is that, liar?
The one the liar made up because he can't bring himself to admit that
it is the simple absence of somebody else's religious belief and not,
in itself, a belief.

If he admits that, it would be an acknowledgement that he has been
wrong all these years.

But he imagines he has too much face to lose.
aaa
2017-04-21 04:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by aaa
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore,
the so called conflict between science and religion is entirely
man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their version of
scientific philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to
promote the atheist godless philosophy.
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
I'm just having fun to poking holes in his atheist belief. :-)
What belief is that, liar?
The belief in atheism. If you want to deny that, then you have denied
atheism. I would love you to try.
default
2017-04-20 15:35:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
aaa
2017-04-20 15:43:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical. How can a real scientist be illogical?
default
2017-04-20 16:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical. How can a real scientist be illogical?
You fail to realize that the people afflicted with religion think it
pertains to actual events that happened on planet earth long ago.
These superstitious people commit legend and folklore to tablets
claiming actual concrete events in human history - THAT is not
"philosophy!" They think it is historical and true!
aaa
2017-04-20 18:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical. How can a real scientist be illogical?
You fail to realize that the people afflicted with religion think it
pertains to actual events that happened on planet earth long ago.
These superstitious people commit legend and folklore to tablets
claiming actual concrete events in human history - THAT is not
"philosophy!" They think it is historical and true!
What historically true may not be explainable by science. Science can
only discover the Big Bang, but science can not explain the cause of the
Big Bang or anything before the Big Bang. In the same way, science can
only find the evidence of life on earth, but science can not explain the
origin of life. When talking about the origin of life and the universe,
science is useless because existence is a philosophical subject that
can't be explained by science. You and the scientists need to realize
the limitation of science. Science can't explain everything. In no way
science can be compared with philosophy, and it certainly can't replace
philosophy. Real scientists should return to their laboratories and stop
meddling in the philosophical issues like origin of life or the
existence of God. They have nothing to do with science. They are
questions of philosophy.
ernobe
2017-04-21 01:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What historically true may not be explainable by science. Science can only
discover the Big Bang, but science can not explain the cause of the Big Bang or
anything before the Big Bang. In the same way, science can only find the
evidence of life on earth, but science can not explain the origin of life. When
talking about the origin of life and the universe, science is useless because
existence is a philosophical subject that can't be explained by science. You and
the scientists need to realize the limitation of science. Science can't explain
everything. In no way science can be compared with philosophy, and it certainly
can't replace philosophy. Real scientists should return to their laboratories
and stop meddling in the philosophical issues like origin of life or the
existence of God. They have nothing to do with science. They are questions of
philosophy.
Atheists who are not scientists, who are the majority, are at a loss to
explain themselves to themselves, therefore they require the theist
scientists to keep them from killing themselves.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
aaa
2017-04-21 04:04:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
What historically true may not be explainable by science. Science can only
discover the Big Bang, but science can not explain the cause of the Big Bang or
anything before the Big Bang. In the same way, science can only find the
evidence of life on earth, but science can not explain the origin of life. When
talking about the origin of life and the universe, science is useless because
existence is a philosophical subject that can't be explained by science. You and
the scientists need to realize the limitation of science. Science can't explain
everything. In no way science can be compared with philosophy, and it certainly
can't replace philosophy. Real scientists should return to their laboratories
and stop meddling in the philosophical issues like origin of life or the
existence of God. They have nothing to do with science. They are questions of
philosophy.
Atheists who are not scientists, who are the majority, are at a loss to
explain themselves to themselves, therefore they require the theist
scientists to keep them from killing themselves.
Atheism is illogical because it's entirely based on human ignorance.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-21 04:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
What historically true may not be explainable by science. Science can only
discover the Big Bang, but science can not explain the cause of the Big Bang or
anything before the Big Bang. In the same way, science can only find the
evidence of life on earth, but science can not explain the origin of life. When
talking about the origin of life and the universe, science is useless because
existence is a philosophical subject that can't be explained by science. You and
the scientists need to realize the limitation of science. Science can't explain
everything. In no way science can be compared with philosophy, and it certainly
can't replace philosophy. Real scientists should return to their laboratories
and stop meddling in the philosophical issues like origin of life or the
existence of God. They have nothing to do with science. They are questions of
philosophy.
Atheists who are not scientists, who are the majority, are at a loss to
explain themselves to themselves, therefore they require the theist
scientists to keep them from killing themselves.
Atheism is illogical because it's entirely based on human ignorance.
You got it. It's arrogant and illogical to insist there is no God when you have spent your entire life on one part of a single planet called Earth. That fool has not seen 1% of the universe. He cannot know what is out there.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-21 14:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
What historically true may not be explainable by science. Science can only
discover the Big Bang, but science can not explain the cause of the Big Bang or
anything before the Big Bang. In the same way, science can only find the
evidence of life on earth, but science can not explain the origin of life. When
talking about the origin of life and the universe, science is useless because
existence is a philosophical subject that can't be explained by science. You and
the scientists need to realize the limitation of science. Science can't explain
everything. In no way science can be compared with philosophy, and it certainly
can't replace philosophy. Real scientists should return to their laboratories
and stop meddling in the philosophical issues like origin of life or the
existence of God. They have nothing to do with science. They are questions of
philosophy.
Atheists who are not scientists, who are the majority, are at a loss to
explain themselves to themselves, therefore they require the theist
scientists to keep them from killing themselves.
Atheism is illogical because it's entirely based on human ignorance.
You got it. It's arrogant and illogical to insist there is no God when you have spent your entire life on one part of a single planet called Earth. That fool has not seen 1% of the universe. He cannot know what is out there.
Your argument is faulty and wrong.....
It may be true to some of your views, but you theists idiots have a deity.
So, a mighty deity would be coming to you, right?
It is therefore irrelevant that we human stay on earth and incapable to know what is out there!!!!

YOU ARE STUPID !!!!!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-21 21:51:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
What historically true may not be explainable by science. Science can only
discover the Big Bang, but science can not explain the cause of the Big Bang or
anything before the Big Bang. In the same way, science can only find the
evidence of life on earth, but science can not explain the origin of life. When
talking about the origin of life and the universe, science is useless because
existence is a philosophical subject that can't be explained by science. You and
the scientists need to realize the limitation of science. Science can't explain
everything. In no way science can be compared with philosophy, and it certainly
can't replace philosophy. Real scientists should return to their laboratories
and stop meddling in the philosophical issues like origin of life or the
existence of God. They have nothing to do with science. They are questions of
philosophy.
Atheists who are not scientists, who are the majority, are at a loss to
explain themselves to themselves, therefore they require the theist
scientists to keep them from killing themselves.
Atheism is illogical because it's entirely based on human ignorance.
You got it. It's arrogant and illogical to insist there is no God when you have spent your entire life on one part of a single planet called Earth. That fool has not seen 1% of the universe. He cannot know what is out there.
http://www.cracked.com/article_24512_6-bible-stories-proving-god-basically-insane-prankster.html
Wouldn't that apply to the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, and Santa Claus as well as Zeus, Mercury, Osiris and on down the list?

Aren't women forbidden from wearing pants in 22:5 Deuteronomy?
Isn't the moral of the story about Ezekiel that God likes to fuck with people?
What about the fate of the Imaginary children of Imaginary Moses's brother Aaron? WTF was that about? Probably the invention of the middle eastern joke about kids blow up so young these days.
At least they didn't have to worry too much about ugly people at the altar.
God has an extensive list that he's very pleased to read out.
No Blind people, in fact, nobody with bad eyesight of any kind. So if you wear glasses or contacts, you're probably out. Nobody who has a crippled foot or hand, so that old college sports injury probably rules you out. If you have a "flat nose," you're out. If you have sores or scabs, you're out. Nobody with a bad back. Nobody with "damaged testicles." And for some reason, God makes it very clear: Absolutely no dwarfs. These people are still welcome to praise God, of course (and by "welcome," he means "required," unless fiery death is on their bucket list) but they're not allowed to approach him with offerings. Because yea, the lord, he swipeth left on thee.

What we know is that so far nobody has proven any god ever.
We know that the bible, both OT and NT are full of crap. They both contain things that are false and unproven as well as outright lies.

Here's a little OT goodie on how they perceived morality.
If a woman is raped and doesn't yell loud enough she is to be stoned to death.
There's a lot of shit that happens to women in the OT that is really just sick.
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Art is right, Jews version of god is not what you would call loving, he's more the kind of deity you would invent if you had a tiny dick and wanted to make yourself feel more manly.
"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20)

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

It's hard to believe that such moral views didn't turn the Jews of Israel into a mighty nation of needle dicked fascists. I guess god was saving that privilege for the Christians, especially the RCC.

I do not need to see the rest of the universe to know what does and does not make sense. The Bible gives me all the evidence I need that your God OT or NT is an asshole of the first order. I would neither worship nor follow such a crazy fucker.

If you choose to believe in it, as long as you aren't killing people at the drop of a Yamalke, then go for it. Just realize that to people outside of the religion you zappear to be bat shit crazy and there will be saome people who do not want to hear about that sort of insanity. There is nothing you can do to rationalize it to us, it will always be stupid, brutish, savage and not the words of an omnipotent being.
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-20 17:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy. If you want to
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
aaa
2017-04-20 18:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.


If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-20 21:33:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.

You think there is a god? Prove it.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-20 22:48:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:33:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Good thing that's just the liar's straw man.
Post by default
Atheism doesn't need science.
The moron knows that. Plenty of atheists aren't science nerds.

He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something, then
one doesn't.

In my case, my atheist parents (going back on one side before Darwin
went on his voyage in 1832) never taught me to be theist.

In other case, people simply lost their belief as they grew up, in the
same way they grew out of Santa Claus.

Basic knowledge, not science, sees to that.
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
What is truly pathetic, is that he imagines he has done.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 22:52:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 3:48:44 PM UTC-7, Christopher A. Lee wrote:



https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-21 00:58:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
https://tinyurl.com/l952nsn
You still have yet to provide a list of any Atheists who have lied about anything according to the standard definition of the word.

That's because none of the people you have accused have done any such thing.

You on the other hand...........
Joe Bruno
2017-04-21 03:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 5:58:27 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:


......https://tinyurl.com/kw9jvq6
Smiler
2017-04-21 00:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:33:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology or geocentrism or
creationism or past life regression go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Good thing that's just the liar's straw man.
Post by default
Atheism doesn't need science.
The moron knows that. Plenty of atheists aren't science nerds.
He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something, then one
doesn't.
In my case, my atheist parents (going back on one side before Darwin
went on his voyage in 1832) never taught me to be theist.
In other case, people simply lost their belief as they grew up, in the
same way they grew out of Santa Claus.
Basic knowledge, not science, sees to that.
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
What is truly pathetic, is that he imagines he has done.
He imagines many things, including his god.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
aaa
2017-04-21 03:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:33:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology or geocentrism or
creationism or past life regression go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Good thing that's just the liar's straw man.
Post by default
Atheism doesn't need science.
The moron knows that. Plenty of atheists aren't science nerds.
He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something, then one
doesn't.
In my case, my atheist parents (going back on one side before Darwin
went on his voyage in 1832) never taught me to be theist.
In other case, people simply lost their belief as they grew up, in the
same way they grew out of Santa Claus.
Basic knowledge, not science, sees to that.
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
What is truly pathetic, is that he imagines he has done.
He imagines many things, including his god.
No. I'm breaking atheism into pieces forcing atheists abandoning their
beloved science.

"Atheism doesn't need science." - Mitchell Holman

:-)
Tim
2017-04-21 20:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:33:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology or geocentrism or
creationism or past life regression go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Good thing that's just the liar's straw man.
Post by default
Atheism doesn't need science.
The moron knows that. Plenty of atheists aren't science nerds.
He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something, then one
doesn't.
In my case, my atheist parents (going back on one side before Darwin
went on his voyage in 1832) never taught me to be theist.
In other case, people simply lost their belief as they grew up, in the
same way they grew out of Santa Claus.
Basic knowledge, not science, sees to that.
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
What is truly pathetic, is that he imagines he has done.
He imagines many things, including his god.
No. I'm breaking atheism into pieces forcing atheists abandoning their
beloved science.
LOL!!! Can you name one of your converts? Your word salad is powerless in the face of science.
Post by aaa
"Atheism doesn't need science." - Mitchell Holman
:-)
aaa
2017-04-21 20:42:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:33:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:46:43 +0800, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist,
which seems to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe
imagines there is, they would have rejected their
science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any
kind of philosophy. It can never contradict with
philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science
and religion is entirely man-made. It's the result
of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established
religious philosophy. Science is merely the
scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist
godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated theist - because all too often science
refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for
science to refute philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if the
findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what
philosophy studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have
anything to do with philosophy.
If you want to
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology or
geocentrism or creationism or past life regression go for
it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Good thing that's just the liar's straw man.
Post by default
Atheism doesn't need science.
The moron knows that. Plenty of atheists aren't science nerds.
He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something,
then one doesn't.
In my case, my atheist parents (going back on one side before
Darwin went on his voyage in 1832) never taught me to be
theist.
In other case, people simply lost their belief as they grew up,
in the same way they grew out of Santa Claus.
Basic knowledge, not science, sees to that.
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
What is truly pathetic, is that he imagines he has done.
He imagines many things, including his god.
No. I'm breaking atheism into pieces forcing atheists abandoning
their beloved science.
LOL!!! Can you name one of your converts? Your word salad is
powerless in the face of science.
Science can always be very powerful, but it has nothing to do with
atheism anyway.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
"Atheism doesn't need science." - Mitchell Holman
:-)
Tim
2017-04-21 21:41:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:33:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:46:43 +0800, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist,
which seems to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe
imagines there is, they would have rejected their
science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any
kind of philosophy. It can never contradict with
philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science
and religion is entirely man-made. It's the result
of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established
religious philosophy. Science is merely the
scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist
godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated theist - because all too often science
refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for
science to refute philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if the
findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what
philosophy studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have
anything to do with philosophy.
If you want to
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology or
geocentrism or creationism or past life regression go for
it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Good thing that's just the liar's straw man.
Post by default
Atheism doesn't need science.
The moron knows that. Plenty of atheists aren't science nerds.
He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something,
then one doesn't.
In my case, my atheist parents (going back on one side before
Darwin went on his voyage in 1832) never taught me to be
theist.
In other case, people simply lost their belief as they grew up,
in the same way they grew out of Santa Claus.
Basic knowledge, not science, sees to that.
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
What is truly pathetic, is that he imagines he has done.
He imagines many things, including his god.
No. I'm breaking atheism into pieces forcing atheists abandoning
their beloved science.
LOL!!! Can you name one of your converts? Your word salad is
powerless in the face of science.
Science can always be very powerful,
You didn't answer the question.
Post by aaa
but it has nothing to do with
atheism anyway.
Yes it does. Science has replaced religion's inability to offer rational explanations for natural phenomena.

So much for the light of theism.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
"Atheism doesn't need science." - Mitchell Holman
:-)
hypatiab7
2017-04-22 11:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Smiler
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:33:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:46:43 +0800, aaa
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist,
which seems to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe
imagines there is, they would have rejected their
science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any
kind of philosophy. It can never contradict with
philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science
and religion is entirely man-made. It's the result
of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established
religious philosophy. Science is merely the
scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist
godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated theist - because all too often science
refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for
science to refute philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if the
findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what
philosophy studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have
anything to do with philosophy.
If you want to
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology or
geocentrism or creationism or past life regression go for
it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Good thing that's just the liar's straw man.
Post by default
Atheism doesn't need science.
The moron knows that. Plenty of atheists aren't science nerds.
He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something,
then one doesn't.
In my case, my atheist parents (going back on one side before
Darwin went on his voyage in 1832) never taught me to be
theist.
In other case, people simply lost their belief as they grew up,
in the same way they grew out of Santa Claus.
Basic knowledge, not science, sees to that.
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
What is truly pathetic, is that he imagines he has done.
He imagines many things, including his god.
No. I'm breaking atheism into pieces forcing atheists abandoning
their beloved science.
LOL!!! Can you name one of your converts? Your word salad is
powerless in the face of science.
Science can always be very powerful,
You didn't answer the question.
Post by aaa
but it has nothing to do with
atheism anyway.
Yes it does. Science has replaced religion's inability to offer rational explanations for natural phenomena.
So much for the light of theism.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
"Atheism doesn't need science." - Mitchell Holman
:-)
Atheism and science are two completely separate things that work very well together. Some fanatical theists seem to think they are only one thing.
That just shows their ignorance and fear of learning.
aaa
2017-04-21 03:49:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-21 12:29:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Atheism doesn't need justification.

Everyone is born an atheist. It is parents
who fill children's heads with notions of invisible
beings like Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy and a god.

Most of us outgrow such childhood fantasies.
Post by aaa
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
Atheism isn't "based" on anything. It is
the natural state of existence.
aaa
2017-04-21 20:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to
be
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made
the
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to
refute
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Atheism doesn't need justification.
Everything in this universe needs justification.
Post by aaa
Everyone is born an atheist. It is parents
who fill children's heads with notions of invisible
beings like Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy and a god.
Most of us outgrow such childhood fantasies.
Post by aaa
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
Atheism isn't "based" on anything. It is
the natural state of existence.
Which is proven to be nothing but pure ignorance.
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-22 01:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to
be
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made
the
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to
refute
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what
philosophy
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Atheism doesn't need justification.
Everything in this universe needs justification.
And if something doesn't meet your standard
for "justification", what then?

Does it disappear?
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Everyone is born an atheist. It is parents
who fill children's heads with notions of invisible
beings like Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy and a god.
Most of us outgrow such childhood fantasies.
Post by aaa
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
Atheism isn't "based" on anything. It is
the natural state of existence.
Which is proven to be nothing but pure ignorance.
Post such proof.

And no, your "personal understanding" is not proof.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-22 02:22:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to
be
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made
the
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to
refute
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Atheism doesn't need justification.
Everything in this universe needs justification.
Not everything.
The earth doesn;t need any, same as evolution.

Does your pixie need justification too?
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Everyone is born an atheist. It is parents
who fill children's heads with notions of invisible
beings like Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy and a god.
Most of us outgrow such childhood fantasies.
Post by aaa
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
Atheism isn't "based" on anything. It is
the natural state of existence.
Which is proven to be nothing but pure ignorance.
That is your pure speculation and imagination.....the same as you imagined a pixie.
hypatiab7
2017-04-22 11:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to
be
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made
the
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to
refute
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Atheism doesn't need justification.
Everything in this universe needs justification.
Post by aaa
Everyone is born an atheist. It is parents
who fill children's heads with notions of invisible
beings like Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy and a god.
Most of us outgrow such childhood fantasies.
Post by aaa
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
Atheism isn't "based" on anything. It is
the natural state of existence.
Which is proven to be nothing but pure ignorance.
In your opinion. Prove it.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-22 13:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 04:20:03 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to
be
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would
have
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy.
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made
the
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly
indoctrinated
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to
refute
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Atheism doesn't need justification.
Everything in this universe needs justification.
Atheism isn't a thing, it's the simple absence of a specific thing.

We're not theists. That's all there is to it.

Why is this so difficult for this in-your-face moron who has no reason
even to be here, to understand?
Post by hypatiab7
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Everyone is born an atheist. It is parents
who fill children's heads with notions of invisible
beings like Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy and a god.
Most of us outgrow such childhood fantasies.
Post by aaa
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
What a fucking moron.

WE'RE ALREADY ATHEISTS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO REASON TO BE THEIST.

Which word was too difficult for this moron to understand?
Post by hypatiab7
Post by aaa
Post by aaa
Atheism isn't "based" on anything. It is
the natural state of existence.
Which is proven to be nothing but pure ignorance.
A stupid lie.
Post by hypatiab7
In your opinion. Prove it.
It can't. It imagines that just saying it, makes it so.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-21 20:59:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
No, it means if you think there is a god and I should believe in it, then you need to prove it to me. The thing is proof means incontrovertible, undeniable, irrefutable, proof. Proof that anybody could observe and say, yep, that proves it. The problem is that no such evidence exists or it would have been made known by now.

My atheism is not based on anybody else's beliefs, it is based solely on the fact that the Bible makes no sense and there is zero proof for any God ever.
ernobe
2017-04-22 15:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
No, it means if you think there is a god and I should believe in it, then you
need to prove it to me. The thing is proof means incontrovertible, undeniable,
irrefutable, proof. Proof that anybody could observe and say, yep, that proves
it. The problem is that no such evidence exists or it would have been made
known by now.
My atheism is not based on anybody else's beliefs, it is based solely on the
fact that the Bible makes no sense and there is zero proof for any God ever.
Nobody needs to prove their thoughts to you. You can read what we say,
and do whatever the hell you want with it. This is the
incontrovertible, undeniable, irrefutable proof that none but yourself
stands to lose from your own denials, and that none but God Himself can
rescue you from your own delusions.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
hypatiab7
2017-04-22 11:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion
teaches.
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
Atheism doesn't need science.
Then what is the justification for atheism? Pure ignorance?
Atheism doesn't need to be justified. Can you justify all the murder,
damage and loss of knowledge through the ages due to religion. And
don't through madmen like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pt and Mau Tze Tung at
me. They didn't murder in the name of atheism. They were power hungry
madmen.
Post by aaa
Post by default
You think there is a god? Prove it.
Does that mean you are going to base your atheism on my inability to
prove God's existence?
Don't be such an egotist. He's just asking for your opinion.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-21 22:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy.
It can't refute philosophy at all. It's not studying what philosophy
studies. Whatever it finds, it will never have anything to do with
philosophy.
If you want to
Post by Mitchell Holman
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Exactly. That's why science is never any justification for atheism.
The only justification needed for atheism is that a person does not believe in God(s). You don't need science for that, but science only reinforces the correctness of atheism by showing the things that are wrong the Bible and the so-called word of an imaginary god.

As a reminder for what the rest of the world interprets as the definition of philosophy, I have listed it below.
Clearly, YOU have NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY IS AND WHAT KIND OF THINGS PHILOSOPHERS DEAL WITH.

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun
noun: philosophy

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
a particular system of philosophical thought.
plural noun: philosophies
"Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
"the philosophy of science"
synonyms: thinking, thought, reasoning
"the philosophy of Aristotle"

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom"[1][2][3][4]) is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[5][6] The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation.[7][8] Classic philosophical questions include: Is it possible to know anything and to prove it?[9][10][11] What is most real? However, philosophers might also pose more practical and concrete questions such as: Is there a best way to live? Is it better to be just or unjust (if one can get away with it)?[12] Do humans have free will?[13]

Historically, "philosophy" encompassed any body of knowledge.[14] From the time of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" encompassed astronomy, medicine and physics.[15] For example, Newton's 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy later became classified as a book of physics. In the 19th century, the growth of modern research universities led academic philosophy and other disciplines to professionalize and specialize.[16][17] In the modern era, some investigations that were traditionally part of philosophy became separate academic disciplines, including psychology, sociology, linguistics and economics.

Other investigations closely related to art, science, politics, or other pursuits remained part of philosophy. For example, is beauty objective or subjective?[18][19] Are there many scientific methods or just one?[20] Is political utopia a hopeful dream or hopeless fantasy?[21][22][23] Major sub-fields of academic philosophy include metaphysics ("concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being"),[24] epistemology (about the "nature and grounds of knowledge [and]...its limits and validity" [25]), ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, logic, philosophy of science and the history of Western philosophy.

Since the 20th century, professional philosophers contribute to society primarily as professors, researchers and writers. However, many of those who study philosophy in undergraduate or graduate programs contribute in the fields of law, journalism, politics, religion, science, business and various art and entertainment activities.[26]

Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, such as existence, time, objects and their properties, wholes and their parts, events, processes and causation and the relationship between mind and body. Metaphysics includes cosmology, the study of the world in its entirety and ontology, the study of being.

A major point of debate revolves between realism, which holds that there are entities that exist independently of their mental perception and idealism, which holds that reality is mentally constructed or otherwise immaterial. Metaphysics deals with the topic of identity. Essence is the set of attributes that make an object what it fundamentally is and without which it loses its identity while accident is a property that the object has, without which the object can still retain its identity. Particulars are objects that are said to exist in space and time, as opposed to abstract objects, such as numbers, and universals, which are properties held by multiple particulars, such as redness or a gender. The type of existence, if any, of universals and abstract objects is an issue of debate.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge (Greek episteme).[59] Epistemologists study the putative sources of knowledge, including intuition, a priori reason, memory, perceptual knowledge, self-knowledge and testimony. They also ask: What is truth? Is knowledge justified true belief? Are any beliefs justified? Putative knowledge includes propositional knowledge (knowledge that something is the case), know-how (knowledge of how to do something) and acquaintance (familiarity with someone or something). Epistemologists examine these and ask whether knowledge is really possible.

Skepticism is the position which doubts claims to knowledge. The regress argument, a fundamental problem in epistemology, occurs when, in order to completely prove any statement, its justification itself needs to be supported by another justification. This chain can go on forever, called infinitism, it can eventually rely on basic beliefs that are left unproven, called foundationalism, or it can go in a circle so that a statement is included in its own chain of justification, called coherentism.

Rationalism is the emphasis on reasoning as a source of knowledge. It is associated with a priori knowledge, which is independent of experience, such as math and logical deduction. Empiricism is the emphasis on observational evidence via sensory experience as the source of knowledge.

Among the numerous topics within metaphysics and epistemology, broadly construed are:

Philosophy of language explores the nature, the origins and the use of language.
Philosophy of mind explores the nature of the mind and its relationship to the body. It is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism. In recent years this branch has become related to cognitive science.
Philosophy of religion explores questions that arise in connection with religions, including the soul, the afterlife, God, religious experience, analysis of religious vocabulary and texts and the relationship of religion and science.
Philosophy of human nature analyzes the unique characteristics of human beings, such as rationality, politics and culture.
Metaphilosophy explores the aims of philosophy, its boundaries and its methods.

Value theory

Value theory (or axiology) is the major branch of philosophy that addresses topics such as goodness, beauty and justice. Value theory includes ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, feminist philosophy, philosophy of law and more.
Ethics

Main article: Ethics

The Beijing imperial college was an intellectual center for Confucian ethics and classics during the Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties.

Ethics, or "moral philosophy", studies and considers what is good and bad conduct, right and wrong values, and good and evil. Its primary investigations include how to live a good life and identifying standards of morality. It also includes meta-investigations about whether a best way to live or related standards exists. The main branches of ethics are normative ethics, meta-ethics and applied ethics.

A major point of debate revolves around consequentialism, where actions are judged by the potential results of the act, such as to maximize happiness, called utilitarianism, and deontology, where actions are judged by how they adhere to principles, irrespective of negative ends.
Aesthetics
Main article: Aesthetics

Aesthetics is the "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."[60][61] It addresses the nature of art, beauty and taste, enjoyment, emotional values, perception and with the creation and appreciation of beauty.[62][63] It is more precisely defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.[64] It divides into art theory, literary theory, film theory and music theory. An example from art theory is to discern the set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement such as the Cubist aesthetic.[65] The philosophy of film analyzes films and filmmakers for their philosophical content and explores film (images, cinema, etc.) as a medium for philosophical reflection and expression.[citation needed]
Political philosophy
Main article: Political philosophy
Thomas Hobbes

Political philosophy is the study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state. It includes questions about justice, law, property and the rights and obligations of the citizen. Politics and ethics are traditionally linked subjects, as both discuss the question of how people should live together.

Other branches of value theory:

There are a variety of branches of value theory.

Philosophy of law (often called jurisprudence) explores the varying theories explaining the nature and interpretation of laws.
Philosophy of education analyzes the definition and content of education, as well as the goals and challenges of educators.
Feminist philosophy explores questions surrounding gender, sexuality and the body including the nature of feminism itself as a social and philosophical movement.
Philosophy of sport analyzes sports, games and other forms of play as sociological and uniquely human activities.

Logic, science and mathematics

Many academic disciplines generated philosophical inquiry. The relationship between "X" and the "philosophy of X" is debated. Richard Feynman argued that the philosophy of a topic is irrelevant to its primary study, saying that "philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." Curtis White, by contrast, argued that philosophical tools are essential to humanities, sciences and social sciences.[66]

The topics of philosophy of science are numbers, symbols and the formal methods of reasoning as employed in the social sciences and natural sciences.
Logic
Main article: Logic

Logic is the study of reasoning and argument. An argument is "a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." The connected series of statements are "premises" and the proposition is the conclusion. For example:

All humans are mortal. (premise)
Socrates is a human. (premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

Deductive reasoning is when, given certain premises, conclusions are unavoidably implied. Rules of inference are used to infer conclusions such as, modus ponens, where given “A” and “If A then B”, then “B” must be concluded.

Because sound reasoning is an essential element of all sciences,[67] social sciences and humanities disciplines, logic became a formal science. Sub-fields include mathematical logic, philosophical logic, Modal logic, computational logic and non-classical logics. A major issue in the philosophy of mathematics revolves around whether mathematical entities are objective and discovered, called mathematical realism, or invented, called mathematical antirealism.
Philosophy of science
Main article: Philosophy of science
The ideas of Ibn al-Haytham were instrumental in the development of the modern Scientific method.

This branch explores the foundations, methods, history, implications and purpose of science. Many of its sub-divisions correspond to a specific branch of science. For example, philosophy of biology deals specifically with the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical issues in the biomedical and life sciences. The philosophy of mathematics studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations and implications of mathematics.
History of philosophy
See also: History of ethics
Further information: Philosophical progress and List of years in philosophy

Some philosophers specialize in one or more historical periods. The history of philosophy (study of a specific period, individual or school) is related to but not the same as the philosophy of history (the theoretical aspect of history, which deals with questions such as the nature of historical evidence and the possibility of objectivity).

Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History influenced many philosophers to interpret truth in light of history, a view called historicism.
Philosophical schools

Some philosophers specialize in one or more of the major philosophical schools, such as Continental philosophy, Analytical philosophy, Thomism, Asian philosophy or African philosophy.
Other approaches

A variety of other academic and non-academic approaches have been explored.
Applied philosophy
Martin Luther King Jr

The ideas conceived by a society have profound repercussions on what actions the society performs. Weaver argued that ideas have consequences. Philosophy yields applications such as those in ethics—applied ethics in particular—and political philosophy. The political and economic philosophies of Confucius, Sun Tzu, Chanakya, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Taymiyyah, Machiavelli, Leibniz, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Marx, Tolstoy, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. have been used to shape and justify governments and their actions. Progressive education as championed by Dewey had a profound impact on 20th century US educational practices. Descendants of this movement include efforts in philosophy for children, which are part of philosophy education. Clausewitz's political philosophy of war has had a profound effect on statecraft, international politics and military strategy in the 20th century, especially around World War II. Logic is important in mathematics, linguistics, psychology, computer science and computer engineering.

Other important applications can be found in epistemology, which aid in understanding the requisites for knowledge, sound evidence and justified belief (important in law, economics, decision theory and a number of other disciplines). The philosophy of science discusses the underpinnings of the scientific method and has affected the nature of scientific investigation and argumentation. Philosophy thus has fundamental implications for science as a whole. For example, the strictly empirical approach of B. F. Skinner's behaviorism affected for decades the approach of the American psychological establishment. Deep ecology and animal rights examine the moral situation of humans as occupants of a world that has non-human occupants to consider also. Aesthetics can help to interpret discussions of music, literature, the plastic arts and the whole artistic dimension of life. In general, the various philosophies strive to provide practical activities with a deeper understanding of the theoretical or conceptual underpinnings of their fields.
Society

Some of those who study philosophy become professional philosophers, typically by working as professors who teach, research and write in academic institutions.[68] However, most students of academic philosophy later contribute to law, journalism, religion, sciences, politics, business, or various arts.[26][69] For example, public figures who have degrees in philosophy include comedians Steve Martin and Ricky Gervais, filmmaker Terrence Malick, Pope John Paul II, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bryer and vice presidential candidate Carly Fiorina.[70][71]

Recent efforts to avail the general public to the work and relevance of philosophers include the million-dollar Berggruen Prize, first awarded to Charles Taylor in 2016.[72]
Professional

Germany was the first country to professionalize philosophy. At the end of 1817, Hegel was the first philosopher to be appointed Professor by the State, namely by the Prussian Minister of Education, as an effect of Napoleonic reform in Prussia. In the United States, the professionalisation grew out of reforms to the American higher-education system largely based on the German model.
Bertrand Russell

Within the last century, philosophy has increasingly become a professional discipline practiced within universities, like other academic disciplines. Accordingly, it has become less general and more specialized. In the view of one prominent recent historian: "Philosophy has become a highly organized discipline, done by specialists primarily for other specialists. The number of philosophers has exploded, the volume of publication has swelled, and the subfields of serious philosophical investigation have multiplied. Not only is the broad field of philosophy today far too vast to be embraced by one mind, something similar is true even of many highly specialized subfields."[73] Some philosophers argue that this professionalization has negatively affected the discipline.[74]

The end result of professionalization for philosophy has meant that work being done in the field is now almost exclusively done by university professors holding a doctorate in the field publishing in highly technical, peer-reviewed journals. While it remains common among the population at large for a person to have a set of religious, political or philosophical views that they consider their "philosophy", these views are rarely informed by or connected to the work being done in professional philosophy today. Furthermore, unlike many of the sciences for which there has come to be a healthy industry of books, magazines, and television shows meant to popularize science and communicate the technical results of a scientific field to the general populace, works by professional philosophers directed at an audience outside the profession remain rare. Philosopher Michael Sandel's book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? and Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit are examples of works that hold the uncommon distinction of having been written by professional philosophers but directed at and ultimately popular among a broader audience of non-philosophers. Both works became 'New York Times best sellers.
Non-professional

Many inquiries outside of academia are philosophical in the broad sense. Novelists, playwrights, filmmakers, and musicians, as well as scientists, social scientists, and others engage in recognizably philosophical activity.

Ayn Rand is the foremost example of an intellectual working contemporaneously with contemporary philosophy but whose contributions were not made within the professional discipline of "philosophy": "For all her [Ayn Rand's] popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact."[15]

Also working from outside the profession were philosophers such as Gerd B. Achenbach (Die reine und die praktische Philosophie. Drei Vorträge zur philosophischen Praxis, 1983) and Michel Weber (see his Épreuve de la philosophie, 2008) who have proposed since the 1980s various forms of philosophical counseling claiming to bring Socratic dialogues back to life in a quasi-psychotherapeutic framework.

Pierre Hadot is famous for his analysis on the conception of philosophy during Greco-Roman antiquity. Hadot identified and analyzed the "spiritual exercises" used in ancient philosophy (influencing Michel Foucault's interest in such practices in the second and third volumes of his History of Sexuality). By "spiritual exercises" Hadot means "practices ... intended to effect a modification and a transformation in the subjects who practice them.[6] The philosophy teacher's discourse could be presented in such a way that the disciple, as auditor, reader, or interlocutor, could make spiritual progress and transform himself within."[7] Hadot shows that the key to understanding the original philosophical impulse is to be found in Socrates. What characterizes Socratic therapy above all is the importance given to living contact between human beings. Hadot's recurring theme is that philosophy in antiquity was characterized by a series of spiritual exercises intended to transform the perception, and therefore the being, of those who practice it; that philosophy is best pursued in real conversation and not through written texts and lectures; and that philosophy, as it is taught in universities today, is for the most part a distortion of its original, therapeutic impulse. He brings these concerns together in What Is Ancient Philosophy?,[7] which has been critically reviewed.[8]
Role of women
Main article: Women in philosophy
American philosopher of mind and philosopher of art Susanne Langer (1895–1985).

Although men have generally dominated philosophical discourse, women have engaged in philosophy throughout history. Women philosophers have contributed since ancient times–notably Hipparchia of Maroneia (active ca. 325 BC) and Arete of Cyrene (active 5th–4th century BC). More were accepted during the ancient, medieval and modern eras, but no women philosophers became part the Western canon until the 20th and 21st century, when some sources indicate that Susanne Langer, Hannah Arendt and Simone de Beauvoir entered the canon.[75][76]

In the early 1800s, some colleges and universities in the UK and US began admitting women, producing more female academics. Nevertheless, U.S. Department of Education reports from the 1990s indicate that few women ended up in philosophy, and that philosophy is one of the least gender-proportionate fields in the humanities.[77] In 2014, Inside Higher Education described the philosophy "...discipline's own long history of misogyny and sexual harassment" of women students and professors.[78]University of Sheffield philosophy professor Jennifer Saul stated in 2015 that women are "...leaving philosophy after being harassed, assaulted, or retaliated against." [79]

In the early 1990s, the Canadian Philosophical Association noted a gender imbalance and gender bias in the academic field of philosophy.[80] In June 2013, a US sociology professor stated that "out of all recent citations in four prestigious philosophy journals, female authors comprise just 3.6 percent of the total."[81] Susan Price argues that the philosophical "...canon remains dominated by white males—the discipline that...still hews to the myth that genius is tied to gender."[82] According to Saul, "[p]hilosophy, the oldest of the humanities, is also the malest (and the whitest). While other areas of the humanities are at or near gender parity, philosophy is actually more overwhelmingly male than even mathematics."[83]
Popular culture

In 2000, the Open Court Publishing Company began publishing a series of books on philosophy and popular culture. Each book consists of essays written by philosophers for general readers. The books "explore the meanings, concepts and puzzles within television shows, movies, music and other icons of popular culture"[84] analyzing topics such as the TV shows Seinfeld and The Simpsons, The Matrix and Star Wars movies and related media and new technological developments such as the iPod and Facebook. Their most recent publication (as of 2016) is titled Louis C.K. and Philosophy; its subject is the comedian Louis C.K..

The Matrix makes numerous references to philosophy including Buddhism, Vedanta, Advaita Hinduism, Christianity, Messianism, Judaism, Gnosticism, existentialism and nihilism. The film's premise resembles Plato's Allegory of the cave, Descartes's evil demon, Kant's reflections on the Phenomenon versus the Ding an sich, Zhuangzi's "Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly", Marxist social theory and the brain in a vat thought experiment. Many references to Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation appear in the film, although Baudrillard himself considered this a misrepresentation.[85]
Joe Bruno
2017-04-21 22:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 3:07:51 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:



https://tinyurl.com/kw9jvq6
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-22 01:23:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
https://tinyurl.com/kw9jvq6
I suppose I should be flattered that you find my posts to be so important that you want everybody to see them repeatedly.

I'm sure the more times and the more people that see what I have written compared to your interpretation of what I have written, the sooner you will be laughed off the face of the earth for being insane and stupid.


One tiny little hint.
If you are going to make the claim that somebody is a liar, you really need to find examples of that. So far you have an epic fail on your hands in that regard. You have many people you call liars and not one example of any of them actually telling a lie, which makes you a liar. Again.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-20 22:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:56:54 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy. If you want to
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Science simply investigates and understands _reality_ - and it's not
science's fault when reality refutes claims made by philosphy,
astrology, religion etc.
aaa
2017-04-21 04:01:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:56:54 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be
the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy.
It can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the
physical science their version of philosophy to believe in.
Therefore, the so called conflict between science and religion is
entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating their
version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the
established religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat
and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
You need to realize that it's never scientific for science to refute
philosophy. It's not even logical.
Science fact is science fact. It doesn't care if
the findings "refute" any philosophy. If you want to
believe in your disproven philosophy of astrology
or geocentrism or creationism or past life regression
go for it.
Science simply investigates and understands _reality_ - and it's not
science's fault when reality refutes claims made by philosphy,
astrology, religion etc.
Science can not refute philosophy. The physical world is unconscious. It
can't refute anything either. As an atheist, you don't even know your
own atheism. You have no idea what your atheist belief is really based on.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-20 17:14:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
Post by default
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
So they "think" this invalidates science, not religion.
aaa
2017-04-20 18:22:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.
Post by default
I'm sure it probably seems that way to the thoroughly indoctrinated
theist - because all too often science refutes what religion teaches.
So they "think" this invalidates science, not religion.
No. It has nothing to do with science. It only invalidates your atheist
belief. Your atheist philosophy has no real philosophical foundation.
It's entirely based on the physical science that has nothing to do with
philosophy. Physical science never suggested the existence or the
non-existence of God. It's entirely your own personal belief to deny
God's existence that has no real relationship with science. You are only
hiding behind science to promote your own personal belief or wishful
thinking.
ernobe
2017-04-21 01:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
No. It has nothing to do with science. It only invalidates your atheist
belief. Your atheist philosophy has no real philosophical foundation. It's
entirely based on the physical science that has nothing to do with
philosophy. Physical science never suggested the existence or the non-existence
of God. It's entirely your own personal belief to deny God's existence that has
no real relationship with science. You are only hiding behind science to promote
your own personal belief or wishful thinking.
Atheism is not a personal belief in lacking beliefs, or the lack
of them in someone who thinks he is a theist, it just indicates a
situation in which no real theist exists.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
aaa
2017-04-21 04:10:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
No. It has nothing to do with science. It only invalidates your atheist
belief. Your atheist philosophy has no real philosophical foundation. It's
entirely based on the physical science that has nothing to do with
philosophy. Physical science never suggested the existence or the non-existence
of God. It's entirely your own personal belief to deny God's existence that has
no real relationship with science. You are only hiding behind science to promote
your own personal belief or wishful thinking.
Atheism is not a personal belief in lacking beliefs, or the lack
of them in someone who thinks he is a theist, it just indicates a
situation in which no real theist exists.
True enough. Atheism is an anomaly of human belief. It has no
justification for itself. It should have never existed.
ernobe
2017-04-21 00:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It can never
contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical science their
version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict between
science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating
their version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the established
religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to
promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky enough to
meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they will become theists,
based on the evidence. If on the other hand they are unlucky enough to
wander into a place like alt.atheism, boy, well it just gives our
friends in here that much more explaining to do, all the while complaining
about the "word salads" being tossed around across the ile.
--
https://archive.org/services/purl/bahai
aaa
2017-04-21 04:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ernobe
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It can never
contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical science their
version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict between
science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating
their version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the established
religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to
promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky enough to
meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they will become theists,
based on the evidence. If on the other hand they are unlucky enough to
wander into a place like alt.atheism, boy, well it just gives our
friends in here that much more explaining to do, all the while complaining
about the "word salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated and
spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them the
light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.

:-)
Tim
2017-04-21 20:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It can never
contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical science their
version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict between
science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the result of atheists creating
their version of scientific philosophy in contradiction with the established
religious philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to
promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky enough to
meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they will become theists,
based on the evidence. If on the other hand they are unlucky enough to
wander into a place like alt.atheism, boy, well it just gives our
friends in here that much more explaining to do, all the while complaining
about the "word salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated and
spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them the
light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
Post by aaa
:-)
aaa
2017-04-21 20:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems
to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they
would have rejected their science when it contradicted their
beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy. It can never contradict with philosophy until
someone has made the physical science their version of
philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict
between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the
result of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf
to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky
enough to meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they
will become theists, based on the evidence. If on the other hand
they are unlucky enough to wander into a place like alt.atheism,
boy, well it just gives our friends in here that much more
explaining to do, all the while complaining about the "word
salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated
and spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them
the light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist
light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
There is no need to agree on everything because everybody's view of the
world is different, but there is a need to agree on God because there is
only one God.
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
:-)
Tim
2017-04-21 21:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems
to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they
would have rejected their science when it contradicted their
beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy. It can never contradict with philosophy until
someone has made the physical science their version of
philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict
between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the
result of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf
to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky
enough to meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they
will become theists, based on the evidence. If on the other hand
they are unlucky enough to wander into a place like alt.atheism,
boy, well it just gives our friends in here that much more
explaining to do, all the while complaining about the "word
salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated
and spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them
the light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist
light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
There is no need to agree on everything
Who said there was? I said the theists here don't agree on anything.

because everybody's view of the
Post by aaa
world is different, but there is a need to agree on God because there is
only one God.
If that's the case then why are there theists who believe that there is more than one god?


So much for the light of theists.
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
:-)
:-|
Joe Bruno
2017-04-22 02:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems
to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they
would have rejected their science when it contradicted their
beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy. It can never contradict with philosophy until
someone has made the physical science their version of
philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict
between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the
result of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf
to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky
enough to meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they
will become theists, based on the evidence. If on the other hand
they are unlucky enough to wander into a place like alt.atheism,
boy, well it just gives our friends in here that much more
explaining to do, all the while complaining about the "word
salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated
and spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them
the light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist
light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
There is no need to agree on everything
Who said there was? I said the theists here don't agree on anything.
That's a disgusting LIE. Christians and Jews both include the Old Testament in their scriptures. They both follow the Ten Commandments. That's what the term
"Judeo-Christian" means, you ignorant jackass.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-22 02:23:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems
to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they
would have rejected their science when it contradicted their
beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy. It can never contradict with philosophy until
someone has made the physical science their version of
philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict
between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the
result of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf
to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky
enough to meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they
will become theists, based on the evidence. If on the other hand
they are unlucky enough to wander into a place like alt.atheism,
boy, well it just gives our friends in here that much more
explaining to do, all the while complaining about the "word
salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated
and spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them
the light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist
light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
There is no need to agree on everything
Who said there was? I said the theists here don't agree on anything.
That's a disgusting LIE. Christians and Jews both include the Old Testament in their scriptures. They both follow the Ten Commandments. That's what the term
"Judeo-Christian" means, you ignorant jackass.
http://www.judeochristianity.org/judeochristianity_principles.htm
Yap Honghor
2017-04-22 02:25:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems
to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they
would have rejected their science when it contradicted their
beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy. It can never contradict with philosophy until
someone has made the physical science their version of
philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict
between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the
result of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf
to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky
enough to meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they
will become theists, based on the evidence. If on the other hand
they are unlucky enough to wander into a place like alt.atheism,
boy, well it just gives our friends in here that much more
explaining to do, all the while complaining about the "word
salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated
and spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them
the light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist
light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
There is no need to agree on everything
Who said there was? I said the theists here don't agree on anything.
That's a disgusting LIE. Christians and Jews both include the Old Testament in their scriptures. They both follow the Ten Commandments. That's what the term
"Judeo-Christian" means, you ignorant jackass.
Fucking moron....do you even understand that Christians and Judaists are different?????

And if you already own OT, why you have another NT??????????
Tim
2017-04-22 10:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems
to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they
would have rejected their science when it contradicted their
beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy. It can never contradict with philosophy until
someone has made the physical science their version of
philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict
between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the
result of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf
to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky
enough to meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they
will become theists, based on the evidence. If on the other hand
they are unlucky enough to wander into a place like alt.atheism,
boy, well it just gives our friends in here that much more
explaining to do, all the while complaining about the "word
salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated
and spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them
the light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist
light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
There is no need to agree on everything
Who said there was? I said the theists here don't agree on anything.
That's a disgusting LIE. Christians and Jews both include the Old Testament in their scriptures. They both follow the Ten Commandments. That's what the term
"Judeo-Christian" means, you ignorant jackass.
Fucking moron....do you even understand that Christians and Judaists are different?????
And if you already own OT, why you have another NT??????????
Trying to reason with bruno is like arguing with one's refrigerator.
Tim
2017-04-22 10:07:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by Tim
Post by aaa
Post by ernobe
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems
to be the only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they
would have rejected their science when it contradicted their
beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of
philosophy. It can never contradict with philosophy until
someone has made the physical science their version of
philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so called conflict
between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's the
result of atheists creating their version of scientific
philosophy in contradiction with the established religious
philosophy. Science is merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf
to promote the atheist godless philosophy.
What about atheists who are not scientists? If they are lucky
enough to meet a theist before their own fellow atheists, they
will become theists, based on the evidence. If on the other hand
they are unlucky enough to wander into a place like alt.atheism,
boy, well it just gives our friends in here that much more
explaining to do, all the while complaining about the "word
salads" being tossed around across the ile.
In my opinion, atheists in general are philosophically uneducated
and spiritually unenlightened. It's the job of theists to show them
the light at the end of their tunnel of darkness.
Yet no two theists here ever agree on anything. So much for theist
light. Your job is that of a word salad tosser.
There is no need to agree on everything
Who said there was? I said the theists here don't agree on anything.
That's a disgusting LIE.
No it isn't. No two theists here ever agree on anything.
Post by Joe Bruno
Christians and Jews both include the Old Testament in their scriptures. ?>They both follow the Ten Commandments.
No you don't. You and earl are both proven liars and hypocrites. All you do is pay lip service to the 10c's. Look how fat weber displays his love of neighbour by calling Obama "buckwheat". You theists are dishonest scum bags, and you don't agree on anything.
Post by Joe Bruno
That's what the term
"Judeo-Christian" means, you ignorant jackass.
No it doesn't, you dumb cunt. If Judaism and Christianity were the same they would not have different names, you dumb cunt.
Mitchell Holman
2017-04-22 02:03:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
There is no need to agree on everything because everybody's view of the
world is different, but there is a need to agree on God because there is
only one God.
Hindus don't see it that way.

Neither do Buddhists.

What makes your belief superior to theirs?
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-22 04:34:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:03:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
There is no need to agree on everything because everybody's view of the
world is different, but there is a need to agree on God because there is
only one God.
Hindus don't see it that way.
Neither do Buddhists.
What makes your belief superior to theirs?
Because it's his, and he has a deep-seated psychological need to wipe
it in everybody else's faces until they think so, too - even though
they don't give a flying fuck..
Don Martin
2017-04-22 16:41:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:03:46 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by aaa
There is no need to agree on everything because everybody's view of the
world is different, but there is a need to agree on God because there is
only one God.
Hindus don't see it that way.
Neither do Buddhists.
What makes your belief superior to theirs?
Because it's his, His, _His_, HIS! When will you atheists ever learn?
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-21 02:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
Hey, I don't think you know much about philosophy...quit your argument.
aaa
2017-04-21 04:23:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
Hey, I don't think you know much about philosophy...quit your argument.
Yet, you have nothing to say about my actual philosophical argument in
the above.
Yap Honghor
2017-04-21 14:05:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by aaa
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by aaa
Post by Christopher A. Lee
If they had been creationist or fundamentalist, which seems to be the
only kind of theist Mad Joe imagines there is, they would have
rejected their science when it contradicted their beliefs.
Science studies what has nothing to do with any kind of philosophy. It
can never contradict with philosophy until someone has made the physical
science their version of philosophy to believe in. Therefore, the so
called conflict between science and religion is entirely man-made. It's
the result of atheists creating their version of scientific philosophy
in contradiction with the established religious philosophy. Science is
merely the scapegoat and the fig leaf to promote the atheist godless
philosophy.
Hey, I don't think you know much about philosophy...quit your argument.
Yet, you have nothing to say about my actual philosophical argument in
the above.
Any philosophy would not want to be friendly with a person who is illogical, whether or not you are head injured.
Cloud Hobbit
2017-04-20 18:53:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much evidence as ever, none.
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
Which is particularly sad since Abraham did not exist either.
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 16:36:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 19:38:57 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
This is exactly why we all think you are stupid. You seem to think that because some famous smart people believed or claimed to believe in your imaginary god, that it somehow makes it more true. It's just their opinion, with as much evidence as ever, none.
That may be, but to someone who is conditioned into believing
(particularly where religion is concerned) what someone else is
telling them, having a big name saying something positive about god is
"irrefutable proof," that god exists.
Poor Einstein, as many times as he used the word god, they think he
actually believed in the god of Abraham.
Trolls have been using that for years. And when we show them the famous quote about his not having a personal god and believing in the pantheistic god of Spinoza, they deliberately misinterpret the quote or call us liars. Actually,
they are the liars. Einstein wasn't an atheist, but it's about time they
learned what a pantheist is.

Definitions of pantheism.

1. Oxford English Dictionary

Pantheism.
1. The religious belief or philosophical theory that God and the Universe are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God); the doctrine that God is everything and everything is God.
[First use 1730, modelled on the word pantheist, first used by John Toland
in 1705]

2. The heathen worship of all the gods.
[First use 1837 by Sir F. Palgrave, describing the Tartar tribes who
respected all creeds but were attached to none]

2. Merriam-Webster Collegiate in Encyclopaedia Britannica

Pantheism
1: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2: the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples
indifferently; also: toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain
periods of the Roman empire).


3. Encyclopaedia Britannica

Pantheism
[Only one def given]
The doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and,
conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces,
and laws that are manifested in the existing universe…
The adjective pantheist was coined by the rationalist freethinker John
Toland in his book Socinianism Truly Stated (1705). The noun pantheism
was first used a few years later by one of Toland’s opponents.


4. Grolier’s Encyclopaedia

Pantheism
[Only one definition given]
Pantheism is the belief that everything is divine, that God is not separate
from but totally identified with the world, and that God does not possess
personality or transcendence.


5. WorldBook Encyclopaedia

Pantheism
[Only one definition given]
Pantheism is the belief that everything is divine, that God is not separate
from but totally identified with the world, and that God does not possess
personality or transcendence.
hypatiab7
2017-04-20 02:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
So what? I can provide a long list of famous scientists who weren't
theists. Every time you post this, you prove nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

http:http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonreligious_Nobel_laureates

http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_film,_radio,_television_and_theater

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_authors

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2010/01/a-large-list-of-awesome-female-atheists/

There are plenty more lists, but this is a good start for anyone who is
seriously interested. I doubt that ArtieJoe is.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 03:14:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 7:50:45 PM UTC-7, hypatiab7 wrote:



https://tinyurl.com/kuc5cu2
hypatiab7
2017-04-21 19:55:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
https://tinyurl.com/kuc5cu2
No one reads your links, ArtyJoe. They may click to see what they are, but then they return to the newsgroup.
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 14:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
ROTFL! Are we to assume that Galileo and Copernicus were "retarded?"How about Rene Des Cartes, the guy who invented Analytic Geometry? How about Isaac Newton?
How about Michael Faraday? YAWN! Another atheist bullshit claim bites the dust.
default
2017-04-20 15:39:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
ROTFL! Are we to assume that Galileo and Copernicus were "retarded?"How about Rene Des Cartes, the guy who invented Analytic Geometry? How about Isaac Newton?
How about Michael Faraday? YAWN! Another atheist bullshit claim bites the dust
You should probably leave out Galileo and Copernicus since the church
had their teachings branded heretical...

Too bad we haven't the ability to actually question these people today
on what they think about a god. After all, back when they lived the
church had an iron grip on what people could say in public without
fear of retribution. If the choice was believe or die, I too would
say I believed...
Christopher A. Lee
2017-04-20 17:23:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by default
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
ROTFL! Are we to assume that Galileo and Copernicus were "retarded?"How about Rene Des Cartes, the guy who invented Analytic Geometry? How about Isaac Newton?
How about Michael Faraday? YAWN! Another atheist bullshit claim bites the dust
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot - but then it's Mad
Joe repeating his dishonest, debunked bullshit, as usual.
Post by default
You should probably leave out Galileo and Copernicus since the church
had their teachings branded heretical...
Too bad we haven't the ability to actually question these people today
on what they think about a god. After all, back when they lived the
church had an iron grip on what people could say in public without
fear of retribution. If the choice was believe or die, I too would
say I believed...
It knows this.

It also knows that the scientists he mentioned, didn't let their
religion interfere with their science.
Hope Simmers
2017-04-20 17:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
ROTFL! Are we to assume that Galileo and Copernicus were "retarded?"How about Rene Des Cartes, the guy who invented Analytic Geometry? How about Isaac Newton?
How about Michael Faraday? YAWN! Another atheist bullshit claim bites the dust
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot - but then it's Mad
Joe repeating his dishonest, debunked bullshit, as usual.
Post by default
You should probably leave out Galileo and Copernicus since the church
had their teachings branded heretical...
Too bad we haven't the ability to actually question these people today
on what they think about a god. After all, back when they lived the
church had an iron grip on what people could say in public without
fear of retribution. If the choice was believe or die, I too would
say I believed...
It knows this.
It also knows that the scientists he mentioned, didn't let their
religion interfere with their science.
It? lol


Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 18:34:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hope Simmers
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
ROTFL! Are we to assume that Galileo and Copernicus were "retarded?"How about Rene Des Cartes, the guy who invented Analytic Geometry? How about Isaac Newton?
How about Michael Faraday? YAWN! Another atheist bullshit claim bites the dust
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot - but then it's Mad
Joe repeating his dishonest, debunked bullshit, as usual.
Post by default
You should probably leave out Galileo and Copernicus since the church
had their teachings branded heretical...
Too bad we haven't the ability to actually question these people today
on what they think about a god. After all, back when they lived the
church had an iron grip on what people could say in public without
fear of retribution. If the choice was believe or die, I too would
say I believed...
It knows this.
It also knows that the scientists he mentioned, didn't let their
religion interfere with their science.
It? lol
I've been called worse. The favorite slur of my colleagues at the County of San Diego Accounting Dept was "Fascist." I also heard "reactionary" occasionally.

Sticks and stones.................
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 20:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hope Simmers
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
ROTFL! Are we to assume that Galileo and Copernicus were "retarded?"How about Rene Des Cartes, the guy who invented Analytic Geometry? How about Isaac Newton?
How about Michael Faraday? YAWN! Another atheist bullshit claim bites the dust
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot - but then it's Mad
Joe repeating his dishonest, debunked bullshit, as usual.
Post by default
You should probably leave out Galileo and Copernicus since the church
had their teachings branded heretical...
Too bad we haven't the ability to actually question these people today
on what they think about a god. After all, back when they lived the
church had an iron grip on what people could say in public without
fear of retribution. If the choice was believe or die, I too would
say I believed...
It knows this.
It also knows that the scientists he mentioned, didn't let their
religion interfere with their science.
It? lol
http://youtu.be/QRqXBsgnYok
Notice how the two idiots try to change the subject. I doubt they fooled anybody.
Kevrob
2017-04-21 22:25:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hope Simmers
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It knows this.
It also knows that the scientists he mentioned, didn't let their
religion interfere with their science.
It? lol
So many of these trolls churn out posts as if they were `bots,
using "it" seems plausible. If a computer program refused to
respond to rebuttals the way they do, it would fail the Turing
test. :)

Kevin R
Joe Bruno
2017-04-20 18:22:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by default
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Bruno
me (Joe Bruno change)
4:05 PM (17 minutes ago)
This is exactly why I have said that all theists are retarded.
FAMOUS SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVED IN GOD
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
ROTFL! Are we to assume that Galileo and Copernicus were "retarded?"How about Rene Des Cartes, the guy who invented Analytic Geometry? How about Isaac Newton?
How about Michael Faraday? YAWN! Another atheist bullshit claim bites the dust
What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot - but then it's Mad
Joe repeating his dishonest, debunked bullshit, as usual.
Post by default
You should probably leave out Galileo and Copernicus since the church
had their teachings branded heretical...
Too bad we haven't the ability to actually question these people today
on what they think about a god. After all, back when they lived the
church had an iron grip on what people could say in public without
fear of retribution. If the choice was believe or die, I too would
say I believed...
It knows this.
It also knows that the scientists he mentioned, didn't let their
religion interfere with their science.
The issue was the atheist idiot claim that all theists are "retarded", you stupid jackass. YOU CAN'T READ. YOU CAN'T READ. YOU CAN'T READ.
Loading...