Discussion:
Richard Dawkins:"I Can't be Sure God Does Not Exist"
(too old to reply)
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-04 08:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
Malcolm McMahon
2017-12-04 09:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 4 December 2017 08:34:22 UTC, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-12-04 12:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 01:45:56 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 4 December 2017 08:34:22 UTC, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
>
>Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not
>possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.

Which isn't our problem, anyway - we're not the ones making the
baseless claims for it where it is simply irrelevant.

Even after all these years, the in-your-face moron who has no reason
even to be here, _still_ has no idea what it means to be an atheist.
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-04 22:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:


https://tinyurl.com/yd59p2kt
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-04 22:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 5:00:03 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 01:45:56 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 4 December 2017 08:34:22 UTC, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
> >
> >Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not
> >possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
>
> Which isn't our problem, anyway - we're not the ones making the
> baseless claims for it where it is simply irrelevant.
>
> Even after all these years, the in-your-face moron who has no reason
> even to be here, _still_ has no idea what it means to be an atheist.

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY

atheism
NOUN

mass noun
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
JTEM
2017-12-04 23:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Liar, Christopher A. Lee lied:

> we're not the ones making the
> baseless claims

Okay, you lying liar who lies, if that
is the case then stop lying and...

PROVE that atheists exist. And only use
evidence that you yourself accept. Which
means, yes, if personal claims/testimony
is acceptable, theists have long since
"Proved" that God exists.

PROVE that abiogenesis ever happened.

...there's two baseless claims you
constantly make!






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168172070268
Yap Honghor
2017-12-05 00:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:34:30 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> Liar, Christopher A. Lee lied:
>
> > we're not the ones making the
> > baseless claims
>
> Okay, you lying liar who lies, if that
> is the case then stop lying and...
>
> PROVE that atheists exist. And only use
> evidence that you yourself accept. Which
> means, yes, if personal claims/testimony
> is acceptable, theists have long since
> "Proved" that God exists.
>
> PROVE that abiogenesis ever happened.
>
> ...there's two baseless claims you
> constantly make!
>
Prove that theism exists, or that JTEM exists.....
Teresita
2017-12-10 00:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/04/2017 03:34 PM, JTEM wrote:
> PROVE that abiogenesis ever happened.

To a scientist, unexplained phenomena are like finding unexpected French
fries at the bottom of the bag.
Rick Johnson
2017-12-10 13:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Teresita wrote:

[...]

> To a scientist, unexplained phenomena are like finding
> unexpected French fries at the bottom of the bag.

Hey, that's like mana from heaven!!!

That is, until you realize all the ketchup is gone and the
fry has waxed colder than a the tit of a witch.

Then you scream:

"Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

"The temporal gods have forsaken me!"

Then you grab your little life-less friend, and lament:

"If only i had gotten there in time, little buddy, we could
have done great things together, you and me"
duke
2017-12-10 18:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 16:22:07 -0800, Teresita <***@netzero.net> wrote:

>On 12/04/2017 03:34 PM, JTEM wrote:
>> PROVE that abiogenesis ever happened.
>
>To a scientist, unexplained phenomena are like finding unexpected French
>fries at the bottom of the bag.

Haahaahaa.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****
JTEM
2017-12-04 23:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.

Very true, no argument there, but it works
both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
maintained here, you are unable to establish
the existence of atheists.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168168140748
Yap Honghor
2017-12-05 00:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 7:10:53 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
>
> Very true, no argument there, but it works
> both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
> maintained here, you are unable to establish
> the existence of atheists.

If it works the way you want for atheists, it also works for the theists.....there is no existence of theists, right? And this means, there is no pixie!!!

Quite fantastic how your tiny brain works, or not working.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168168140748
JTEM
2017-12-08 21:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Yap Honghor wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > Very true, no argument there, but it works
> > both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
> > maintained here, you are unable to establish
> > the existence of atheists.

> If it works the way you want for atheists, it also works for the theists.....

I've pointed that out many times, but you
always denied it.

If personal claims/testimony is valid evidence,
if it "Proves" the existence of atheists then
it proves the existence of God.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168163532708
Malcolm McMahon
2017-12-06 11:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 4 December 2017 23:10:53 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
>
> Very true, no argument there, but it works
> both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
> maintained here, you are unable to establish
> the existence of atheists.
>
>
>

There are perfectly sound, and testable definitions of atheism, even if there's more than one alternative.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-12-06 16:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 03:44:08 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 4 December 2017 23:10:53 UTC, JTEM wrote:
>> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>
>> > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
>>
>> Very true, no argument there, but it works
>> both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
>> maintained here, you are unable to establish
>> the existence of atheists.

As usual, the proven serial liar lies through his teeth. He turns
challenges to theists to put up or shut up, into demands for proof
that would convince a solipsist that we exist.

Which he knows is deliberately dishonest.

It's treats the ordinary for which there is everyday evidence, as the
same as the baseless and unevidenced.

And he doesn't even fool himself.

>There are perfectly sound, and testable definitions of atheism, even
>if there's more than one alternative.

Who does the moron think he's talking to?

Does he really "think" we're lying when we explain what it means to
atheists to be atheists?
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-06 20:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 8:18:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 03:44:08 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 4 December 2017 23:10:53 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> >> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> >>
> >> Very true, no argument there, but it works
> >> both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
> >> maintained here, you are unable to establish
> >> the existence of atheists.
>
> As usual, the proven serial liar lies through his teeth. He turns
> challenges to theists to put up or shut up, into demands for proof
> that would convince a solipsist that we exist.
>
> Which he knows is deliberately dishonest.
>
> It's treats the ordinary for which there is everyday evidence, as the
> same as the baseless and unevidenced.
>
> And he doesn't even fool himself.
>
> >There are perfectly sound, and testable definitions of atheism, even
> >if there's more than one alternative.
>
> Who does the moron think he's talking to?
>
> Does he really "think" we're lying when we explain what it means to
> atheists to be atheists?

https://tinyurl.com/yd59p2kt
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-07 08:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 8:18:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 03:44:08 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 4 December 2017 23:10:53 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> >> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> >>
> >> Very true, no argument there, but it works
> >> both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
> >> maintained here, you are unable to establish
> >> the existence of atheists.
>
> As usual, the proven serial liar lies through his teeth.

Show us the proof he has told any lies.
JTEM
2017-12-08 20:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> As usual, the proven serial liar

So "Prove" that atheists exist. Use only
"Evidence" which you consider valid. If
you accept personal claims/testimony in
the case of supposed atheists, but not
when theists present the same kind of
evidence, that demonstrates that it is
NOT the evidence itself which you are
basing your views on, but your feelings
towards the conclusion.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153
Yap Honghor
2017-12-09 01:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 4:28:56 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > As usual, the proven serial liar
>
> So "Prove" that atheists exist. Use only
> "Evidence" which you consider valid. If
> you accept personal claims/testimony in
> the case of supposed atheists, but not
> when theists present the same kind of
> evidence, that demonstrates that it is
> NOT the evidence itself which you are
> basing your views on, but your feelings
> towards the conclusion.
>
I exist, so atheism exist!
Any more question????
v***@gmail.com
2018-04-23 04:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 8:18:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 03:44:08 -0800 (PST), Malcolm McMahon
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, 4 December 2017 23:10:53 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> >> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> >>
> >> Very true, no argument there, but it works
> >> both ways. Given the standard of "Proof"
> >> maintained here, you are unable to establish
> >> the existence of atheists.
>
> As usual, the proven serial liar lies through his teeth. He turns
> challenges to theists to put up or shut up, into demands for proof
> that would convince a solipsist that we exist.
>
> Which he knows is deliberately dishonest.
>
> It's treats the ordinary for which there is everyday evidence, as the
> same as the baseless and unevidenced.
>
> And he doesn't even fool himself.
>
> >There are perfectly sound, and testable definitions of atheism, even
> >if there's more than one alternative.
>
> Who does the moron think he's talking to?
>
> Does he really "think" we're lying when we explain what it means to
> atheists to be atheists?

You are speaking the English language. The words you use are defined by the dictionary, NOT by your personal opinion..
JTEM
2017-12-08 21:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> There are perfectly sound, and testable definitions of atheism

Nobody asked. You were challenged to prove that
atheists exists. You still haven't done so.

Nobody has. Not ever.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168163532708
JTEM
2017-12-08 20:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.

So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
that atheists exist?

Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
"Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
upon even if it's coming from the theists.

Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
they are acceptable for establishing the existence
of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
the lowest order.

So, HOP TO IT! You go right ahead and "Prove"
the existence of atheists. That, or seriously
re-think all your talking about "Proving" God.

One or the other.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168163532708
Malcolm McMahon
2017-12-13 11:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
>
> So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> that atheists exist?
>
> Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> upon even if it's coming from the theists.
>
> Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> the lowest order.
>

Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
Yap Honghor
2017-12-13 12:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >
> > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> >
> > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> > that atheists exist?
> >
> > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> >
> > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> > the lowest order.
> >
>
> Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.

Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-12-13 14:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> > >
> > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> > > that atheists exist?
> > >
> > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> > >
> > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> > > the lowest order.
> > >
> >
> > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
>
> Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
> Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.

Valid testimony about what someone believes, not about facts.
s***@gmail.com
2017-12-13 20:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> > >
> > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> > > that atheists exist?
> > >
> > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> > >
> > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> > > the lowest order.
> > >
> >
> > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
>
> Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
> Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.

That you don't believe in any god(s) _is_ valid testimony.
That most trolls here believe in at least one god is also valid testimony.
Their beliefs are not valid testimony.
Yap Honghor
2017-12-14 03:19:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> > > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> > > >
> > > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> > > > that atheists exist?
> > > >
> > > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> > > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> > > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> > > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> > > >
> > > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> > > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> > > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> > > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> > > > the lowest order.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
> >
> > Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
> > Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.
>
> That you don't believe in any god(s) _is_ valid testimony.
> That most trolls here believe in at least one god is also valid testimony.
> Their beliefs are not valid testimony.

Ok, I have a clearer view of the whole issue.
Amazing Answers
2018-04-23 05:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:19:18 PM UTC-8, Yap Honghor wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> > > > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > > > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > > > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> > > > > that atheists exist?
> > > > >
> > > > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> > > > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> > > > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> > > > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> > > > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> > > > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> > > > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> > > > > the lowest order.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
> > >
> > > Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
> > > Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.
> >
> > That you don't believe in any god(s) _is_ valid testimony.
> > That most trolls here believe in at least one god is also valid testimony.
> > Their beliefs are not valid testimony.
>
> Ok, I have a clearer view of the whole issue.

You aren't clearer on your view on donkey brains.
Yap Honghor
2018-04-23 08:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:08:51 PM UTC+8, Amazing Answers wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:19:18 PM UTC-8, Yap Honghor wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> > > > > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > > > > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > > > > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> > > > > > that atheists exist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> > > > > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> > > > > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> > > > > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> > > > > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> > > > > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> > > > > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> > > > > > the lowest order.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
> > > > Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.
> > >
> > > That you don't believe in any god(s) _is_ valid testimony.
> > > That most trolls here believe in at least one god is also valid testimony.
> > > Their beliefs are not valid testimony.
> >
> > Ok, I have a clearer view of the whole issue.
>
> You aren't clearer on your view on donkey brains.

I have absolutely clear view of you being a donkey brain.
That's enough...
Tim
2018-04-23 09:48:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:08:51 AM UTC-4, Amazing Answers wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:19:18 PM UTC-8, Yap Honghor wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> > > > > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> > > > > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> > > > > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> > > > > > that atheists exist?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> > > > > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> > > > > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> > > > > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> > > > > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> > > > > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> > > > > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> > > > > > the lowest order.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
> > > > Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.
> > >
> > > That you don't believe in any god(s) _is_ valid testimony.
> > > That most trolls here believe in at least one god is also valid testimony.
> > > Their beliefs are not valid testimony.
> >
> > Ok, I have a clearer view of the whole issue.
>
> You aren't clearer on your view on donkey brains.

Yes he is. He clearly sees, as do I and many others here, that you're a donkey brain, lacking logic, and driven by uncontrolled emotions.
John Baker
2018-04-23 23:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Tim <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:08:51 AM UTC-4, Amazing Answers wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:19:18 PM UTC-8, Yap Honghor wrote:
>> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> > > > > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
>> > > > > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
>> > > > > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
>> > > > > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
>> > > > > > that atheists exist?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
>> > > > > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
>> > > > > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
>> > > > > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
>> > > > > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
>> > > > > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
>> > > > > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
>> > > > > > the lowest order.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
>> > > >
>> > > > Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
>> > > > Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.
>> > >
>> > > That you don't believe in any god(s) _is_ valid testimony.
>> > > That most trolls here believe in at least one god is also valid testimony.
>> > > Their beliefs are not valid testimony.
>> >
>> > Ok, I have a clearer view of the whole issue.
>>
>> You aren't clearer on your view on donkey brains.
>
>Yes he is. He clearly sees, as do I and many others here, that you're a donkey brain, lacking logic, and driven by uncontrolled emotions.

I strongly disagree that McFuckwit is a donkey brain. Donkeys are much
more intelligent.







AA #1898
Giver of No Fucks
Keeper of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Yap Honghor
2018-04-24 08:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:59:00 AM UTC+8, John Baker wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT), Tim <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:08:51 AM UTC-4, Amazing Answers wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:19:18 PM UTC-8, Yap Honghor wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 4:02:04 AM UTC+8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday, 13 December 2017 12:56:41 UTC, Yap Honghor wrote:
> >> > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 7:21:00 PM UTC+8, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >> > > > > On Friday, 8 December 2017 20:58:43 UTC, JTEM wrote:
> >> > > > > > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Well, obviously. Without a closer definition
> >> > > > > > > of "God" clearly it's not possible, even in
> >> > > > > > > principal, to prove nothing of that sort exists.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > So what's your excuse for FAILING to "Prove"
> >> > > > > > that atheists exist?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Wanna give it another try? Just remember, whatever
> >> > > > > > "Evidence" you use will be setting a standard for
> >> > > > > > acceptability for evidence, one which you agree
> >> > > > > > upon even if it's coming from the theists.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Meaning, if self reports/testimony is acceptable
> >> > > > > > for establishing the existence of atheists, it's
> >> > > > > > they are acceptable for establishing the existence
> >> > > > > > of God. Anything less would be utter hypocrisy of
> >> > > > > > the lowest order.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Personal testimony _is_ admissible when the issue at hand is what those that testify _believe_. The existence of atheists doesn't prove there is no god, and the existence of theists doesn't prove there is.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Oh, believe can be a valid testimony????
> >> > > > Wow, this loony shit is even beyond every one's expectation.
> >> > >
> >> > > That you don't believe in any god(s) _is_ valid testimony.
> >> > > That most trolls here believe in at least one god is also valid testimony.
> >> > > Their beliefs are not valid testimony.
> >> >
> >> > Ok, I have a clearer view of the whole issue.
> >>
> >> You aren't clearer on your view on donkey brains.
> >
> >Yes he is. He clearly sees, as do I and many others here, that you're a donkey brain, lacking logic, and driven by uncontrolled emotions.
>
> I strongly disagree that McFuckwit is a donkey brain. Donkeys are much
> more intelligent.

What do you suggest is a better alternative? Ostrich which bury its head in the sand, pretending nothing would happen to it?
JTEM
2018-04-23 03:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Malcolm McMahon wrote:

> Personal testimony _is_ admissible when

...when it agrees with your pre determined
conclusion. Exactly.

You're transparent. Someone has to be biased,
a partisan -- if not out right dogmatic -- in
order to agree with your "Logic."





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/173199893863
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-04 13:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:34:22 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
.> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Nothing he hasn't said before. It's simple intellectual honesty.
Though I doubt he was talking about any specific God, whether
OdinAllfather or Anubis or Huehuecoyatl or YHWH.

In fact he had talked about a designer in an earlier interview with Ben Stein:

"It could come about in the following way: it could
be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the
Universe, a civilization evolved by probably some
kind of Darwinian means, to a very very high level
of technology. And designed a form of life that
they seeded onto, perhaps,this planet. Now that is
a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I
suppose its possible you might find evidence for
that if you look at the details of biochemistry and
molecular biology you might find a signature of
some sort of designer. And that designer could well
be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the
Universe."

I've said something like that myself. Here. Repeatedly.


Atlatl
default
2017-12-04 15:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 05:27:58 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:34:22 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>.> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
>
>Nothing he hasn't said before. It's simple intellectual honesty.
>Though I doubt he was talking about any specific God, whether
>OdinAllfather or Anubis or Huehuecoyatl or YHWH.
>
>In fact he had talked about a designer in an earlier interview with Ben Stein:
>
> "It could come about in the following way: it could
> be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the
> Universe, a civilization evolved by probably some
> kind of Darwinian means, to a very very high level
> of technology. And designed a form of life that
> they seeded onto, perhaps,this planet. Now that is
> a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I
> suppose its possible you might find evidence for
> that if you look at the details of biochemistry and
> molecular biology you might find a signature of
> some sort of designer. And that designer could well
> be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the
> Universe."
>
>I've said something like that myself. Here. Repeatedly.
>
>
>Atlatl


I agree, it could be an extra-terrestrial intelligence from the
distant past. (wouldn't surprise me if we didn't do something of the
sort once we become advanced enough) It could be that there is an
actual eternal god. (hopefully he wouldn't be as egocentric and
sadistic as Christians would have us believe)

In truth, when you don't actually Know, anything might be possible. I
think the only position that makes sense, is to say you don't know and
be satisfied with that.

All cultures throughout history have invented creation myths to
explain how they got there. Volcanoes , tidal waves, fierce storms,
etc., satisfied primitive tribes, as man advanced his gods did too.
Any explanation that makes men feel safe, secure, and seems to give
them purpose, they will cling to. Other men know this and exploit it.
Don Martin
2017-12-05 00:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 10:11:04 -0500, default <***@defaulter.net>
wrote:

>All cultures throughout history have invented creation myths to
>explain how they got there. Volcanoes , tidal waves, fierce storms,
>etc., satisfied primitive tribes, as man advanced his gods did too.
>Any explanation that makes men feel safe, secure, and seems to give
>them purpose, they will cling to. Other men know this and exploit it.

And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.

--
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.
Teresita
2017-12-05 02:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
> And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
> happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
> may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.

Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.
Christopher A. Lee
2017-12-05 02:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 18:01:11 -0800, Teresita <***@netzero.net>
wrote:

>On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
>> And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
>> happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
>> may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.
>
>Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
>the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
>you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
>atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.

You can back it up by describing three groups....

- The Paraha from the remote interior of Brazil, whose language
doesn't have the words to frame or communicate the idea of god(s)

- Those Eastern religions which don't have gods and are sometimes
called philosophies

- Western atheists who don't teach their children gods

Children of these groups don't grow up believing in them.

Although with the last one, often well-meaning in-laws, the
babysitter, etc will sometimes teach them to.

But there are plenty of atheists here, who were raised theism-free,
especially those from Britain and Western Europe.
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-05 03:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 6:37:56 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:


https://tinyurl.com/yd59p2kt
JTEM
2017-12-08 20:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The most dogmatic assholes keeping doing
this thing were they define [A] as [B]
and then uphold it as "Proof" of their
beliefs.

Example #1: Redefining AGNOSTICS as
ATHEISTS and then claiming that ATHEISTS
don't believe there is no God(s).

Example #2: Redefining religious beliefs
and not religious beliefs in order to
pretend that everyone is born an atheist,
as seen here...


Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> You can back it up by describing three groups....
>
> - The Paraha from the remote interior of Brazil, whose language
> doesn't have the words to frame or communicate the idea of god(s)

The Piraha, you ignorant jackass. And they
DO have religious beliefs. They believe in
spirits and create jewelry to ward off these
spirits.

"Their decoration is mostly necklaces, used
primarily to ward off spirits."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

Hmm. There's a pattern here. You make bold,
easily refuted statements and then regurgitate
them ad nauseam without any of your other
"Different" people noticing, much less correcting
your.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168163532708
default
2017-12-05 03:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 18:01:11 -0800, Teresita <***@netzero.net>
wrote:

>On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
>> And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
>> happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
>> may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.
>
>Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
>the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
>you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
>atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.

Indeed.
Don Martin
2017-12-05 03:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 18:01:11 -0800, Teresita <***@netzero.net>
wrote:

>On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
>> And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
>> happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
>> may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.
>
>Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
>the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
>you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
>atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.

Well, to them such "curious coincidences" ARE traps laid by Satan to
induce folks to think, and if folks ever did, where would the
believers be?

--
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.
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-05 03:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 6:01:28 PM UTC-8, Teresita wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
> > And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
> > happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
> > may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.
>
> Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
> the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
> you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
> atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.

I don't say that ever.
Yap Honghor
2017-12-05 07:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, December 5, 2017 at 11:23:01 AM UTC+8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 6:01:28 PM UTC-8, Teresita wrote:
> > On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
> > > And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
> > > happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
> > > may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.
> >
> > Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
> > the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
> > you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
> > atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.
>
> I don't say that ever.

You don't say this, you don't say that, what do you say?
You actually say nothing, except posting links from others...most of the time wrongly to represent what you agree, but care not about what the real facts are!!!!
Cloud Hobbit
2017-12-06 22:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:23:01 PM UTC-8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 6:01:28 PM UTC-8, Teresita wrote:
> > On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
> > > And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
> > > happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
> > > may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.
> >
> > Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
> > the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
> > you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
> > atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.
>
> I don't say that ever.

Nobody said you did.
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-07 08:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:56:25 PM UTC-8, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 7:23:01 PM UTC-8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 6:01:28 PM UTC-8, Teresita wrote:
> > > On 12/04/2017 04:16 PM, Don Martin wrote:
> > > > And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
> > > > happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
> > > > may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.
> > >
> > > Another curious coincidence is that babies all seem to grow up believing
> > > the myth of the culture and parents they find themselves with. Yet if
> > > you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
> > > atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell.
> >
> > I don't say that ever.
>
> Nobody said you did.

Teresita said:

"if
you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
atheists, they will reply that is a lie from the pit of hell."
JTEM
2017-12-08 20:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Teresita wrote:

> Yet if
> you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
> atheists

Helpless, ignorant, drooling fat people who
pee & shit all over themselves?

Babies are never born atheists. "Agnostic," perhaps,
but never atheists. An atheists believes there is
no God(s).






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153
Yap Honghor
2017-12-09 01:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, December 9, 2017 at 4:31:50 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> Teresita wrote:
>
> > Yet if
> > you tell a believer the obvious conclusion is that babies are born
> > atheists
>
> Helpless, ignorant, drooling fat people who
> pee & shit all over themselves?
>
> Babies are never born atheists. "Agnostic," perhaps,
> but never atheists. An atheists believes there is
> no God(s).

Babies are atheists, until stupid fucking moronic parents feed them with fucking NON-EXISTENT PIXIE!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168262727153
default
2017-12-05 03:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 19:16:22 -0500, Don Martin
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 10:11:04 -0500, default <***@defaulter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>All cultures throughout history have invented creation myths to
>>explain how they got there. Volcanoes , tidal waves, fierce storms,
>>etc., satisfied primitive tribes, as man advanced his gods did too.
>>Any explanation that makes men feel safe, secure, and seems to give
>>them purpose, they will cling to. Other men know this and exploit it.
>
>And, strangely enough, in each myth the guys doing the creating just
>happen to be the chosen people of their particular god. All others
>may be killed (and their women stolen) with impunity.

Of course. Isis is a sterling example, but all religions do it.
Rick Johnson
2017-12-04 16:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Atlatl Axolotl wrote:
> ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > TITLE: Richard Dawkins:"I Can't be Sure God Does Not Exist"
>
> Nothing he hasn't said before. It's simple intellectual
> honesty. [...] In fact he had talked about a designer in an
> earlier interview with Ben Stein:
>
> "It could come about in the following way: it could
> be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the
> Universe, a civilization evolved by probably some
> kind of Darwinian means, to a very very high level
> of technology. And designed a form of life that
> they seeded onto, perhaps,this planet. Now that is
> a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I
> suppose its possible you might find evidence for
> that if you look at the details of biochemistry and
> molecular biology you might find a signature of
> some sort of designer. And that designer could well
> be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the
> Universe."
>
> I've said something like that myself. Here. Repeatedly.


"The world is full of magical things, patiently waiting for
our wits to grow sharper"

Truer words about our existence have never been spoken.

There are many so-called "theories" regarding how life came
into being in our Universe, but _all_ of them are missing
one vital ingredient: *EVIDENCE*.

Granted, some are more plausible than others, but, while the
possibility of that which Dawkins outlines here is indeed
"plausible", there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
Of course, the theists have their own "theory", however,
compared with Dawkins, they are intellectually lazy. They'd
rather imagine that some magical god created all life simply
so it would have something to love and hate -- i find that
to be totally implausible.

If we are to entertain these wild theories of creation, then
we'd need to be more honest with ourselves as to the reality
of such. And acting as though some cosmic moral imperative
is underpinning our so-called creation is the height of
foolishness and evidence that unfettered subjectivity is the
_true_ root of all evil in this Universe.

SOLIPSISM -- YOU SHORTSIGHTED, INTOXICATING, SELF-DELUDED
CULTISH GURU -- I SNEERING DIRECTLY AT _YOU_!!!

So, if we were indeed "created", and that's a big old *IF*
-- the kind of "if" that people pull out of their arses on a
daily basis -- it is much more likely that our creators
created all the various lifeforms we know on our tiny little
planet, *NOT* because they were bored to tears and needed
hapless victims to project emotions upon, but simply because
they _could_.

Of course, if we accept all this creation mumbo jumbo, we
quickly find ourselves in the recursive tar pits of logic,
asking ourselves: "Who created the creators".

As for Dawkins, his "theory" satisfies this troubling
question with a logical: "Our creators are an advanced form
of intelligence that naturally evolved". So, in this sense,
Dawkins, a single man, has pulled a far more plausible
theory out of his arse than could be gleamed by billions of
theists over the last umteen fucking centuries.

But there's a darker side to this whole creation mumbo
jumbo...

For if we discover one day that we are nothing but the
equivalent of various forms of bacteria swimming around in a
vat in some higher intelligence's science lab, i think the
theists -- who have propagated these myths underpined with
moral imperatives and fatherly love from "god" -- are going
to have a very difficult time dealing with that sort of
disappointment. As for us atheists, it really won't be much
of a big deal. Life will go on virtually unchanged. But for
those who dedicated their lives (and their supposed "after-
life") to these lies, how the hell are they going to find
purpose after such an earth-shattering revelation?

If you ask me -- and being that i'm guided by a pragmatist
perspective, and all -- i'd say a higher intelligence could
make the best use of us "tiny lifeforms" by throwing us all
in a ziplock bag and using the bag as an ass warmer on cold
days. But hey, that's just if you ask me!

In conclusion, we simply don't know enough about our
universe to latch on to every "feel good" theory that
happens to exit our anal cavity. Heck, we have not even
ventured beyond our own moon, and yet, these damned theist
have the hubris to draw definitive conclusions concerning
questions of such cosmic proportion.

In the end, i think it'd be less of a blow to their ego if
there really is no creator at all, as i don't believe they
can handle living in a universe in which "the creator" is
indifferent to their existence and well-being.
Kevrob
2017-12-04 16:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:28:23 AM UTC-5, Rick Johnson wrote:

>.... it is much more likely that our creators
> created all the various lifeforms we know on our tiny little
> planet, *NOT* because they were bored to tears and needed
> hapless victims to project emotions upon, but simply because
> they _could_.
>

We might not have been created by super-intelligent aliens on
purpose, but might be the result of their not sterilizing their
deep space probes effectively: life evolving from the remnants
of life - the waste products, even - attached to their vehicles.

Somebody at Galactic Central could be very pissed off about this,
and may even now be florgling someone's greepnors over the fraknids,
if that hasn't happened already!

> Of course, if we accept all this creation mumbo jumbo, we
> quickly find ourselves in the recursive tar pits of logic,
> asking ourselves: "Who created the creators".
>
> As for Dawkins, his "theory" satisfies this troubling
> question with a logical: "Our creators are an advanced form
> of intelligence that naturally evolved". So, in this sense,
> Dawkins, a single man, has pulled a far more plausible
> theory out of his arse than could be gleamed by billions of
> theists over the last umteen fucking centuries.
>
> But there's a darker side to this whole creation mumbo
> jumbo...
>
> For if we discover one day that we are nothing but the
> equivalent of various forms of bacteria swimming around in a
> vat in some higher intelligence's science lab, i think the
> theists -- who have propagated these myths underpined with
> moral imperatives and fatherly love from "god" -- are going
> to have a very difficult time dealing with that sort of
> disappointment. As for us atheists, it really won't be much
> of a big deal. Life will go on virtually unchanged. But for
> those who dedicated their lives (and their supposed "after-
> life") to these lies, how the hell are they going to find
> purpose after such an earth-shattering revelation?
>
> If you ask me -- and being that i'm guided by a pragmatist
> perspective, and all -- i'd say a higher intelligence could
> make the best use of us "tiny lifeforms" by throwing us all
> in a ziplock bag and using the bag as an ass warmer on cold
> days. But hey, that's just if you ask me!
>
> In conclusion, we simply don't know enough about our
> universe to latch on to every "feel good" theory that
> happens to exit our anal cavity. Heck, we have not even
> ventured beyond our own moon, and yet, these damned theist
> have the hubris to draw definitive conclusions concerning
> questions of such cosmic proportion.
>
> In the end, i think it'd be less of a blow to their ego if
> there really is no creator at all, as i don't believe they
> can handle living in a universe in which "the creator" is
> indifferent to their existence and well-being.

Existential dread in the face of a ghodless universe is not
exactly a new thing. Maltheism or Dystheism would be an even
worse alternative for the ghodbots.

Kevin R
Rick Johnson
2017-12-04 17:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 10:57:34 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
[...]
> We might not have been created by super-intelligent aliens
> on purpose, but might be the result of their not
> sterilizing their deep space probes effectively: life
> evolving from the remnants of life - the waste products,
> even - attached to their vehicles. Somebody at Galactic
> Central could be very pissed off about this, and may even
> now be florgling someone's greepnors over the fraknids, if
> that hasn't happened already!

And serves them right! Perhaps next time, that space cadet
will remember to follow the protocols and employ the
procedures that will fully exterminate our invasive species.

> Existential dread in the face of a ghodless universe is not
> exactly a new thing. Maltheism or Dystheism would be an even
> worse alternative for the ghodbots.

Hmm, I think they're already carring around a significant
fear of god (aka: persecution complex), however, what you
propose would take it to a whole new level. And if the god
in question were only concerned with believers, and would
agree to leave the rest of us alone, then it might even be
the purist form of poetic justice.
Kevrob
2017-12-04 17:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 12:12:23 PM UTC-5, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 10:57:34 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
> [...]
> > We might not have been created by super-intelligent aliens
> > on purpose, but might be the result of their not
> > sterilizing their deep space probes effectively: life
> > evolving from the remnants of life - the waste products,
> > even - attached to their vehicles. Somebody at Galactic
> > Central could be very pissed off about this, and may even
> > now be florgling someone's greepnors over the fraknids, if
> > that hasn't happened already!
>

NASA has a "planetary protection officer" who is charged
with, among other things, not polluting places our craft
visit.

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

https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/

> And serves them right! Perhaps next time, that space cadet
> will remember to follow the protocols and employ the
> procedures that will fully exterminate our invasive species.
>

Creating a new biome on purpose may be unwise. Doing it by
accident is just a blunder!

> > Existential dread in the face of a ghodless universe is not
> > exactly a new thing. Maltheism or Dystheism would be an even
> > worse alternative for the ghodbots.
>
> Hmm, I think they're already carring around a significant
> fear of god (aka: persecution complex), however, what you
> propose would take it to a whole new level. And if the god
> in question were only concerned with believers, and would
> agree to leave the rest of us alone, then it might even be
> the purist form of poetic justice.

We can hope dread Cthulhu will eat us first, of course. :)

Kevin R
Rick Johnson
2017-12-07 17:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:34:42 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

[...]

> Creating a new biome on purpose may be unwise. Doing it by
> accident is just a blunder!

Hey, that's true. But we could always follow the example of
small children and shift the blame onto someone else. O:-)


[THE GALACTIC COUNSEL OF NINE EXCORIATES THE ACCUSED]

"And now, puny humans, before we hand down our verdict, what
is your excuse for infecting our pristine universe with such
a loathsome species? A species who's only concern seems to
be its own selfish survival at the expense of everything
that is wholesome and beautiful in our beloved milky ways?"

[ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ]

"SPEAK!!!"

HUMANS: "But it wasn't us!" (points finger)--> "Goddidit!"

GCoN: "Hmm. And if God did a swan dive off a Dynson Sphere
into the molten innards of a star, would you do a swan dive
off a Dynson Sphere too?"

HUMANS: "Noooooooo???" :'-(

GCoN: "Okay then. We didn't think so."


> We can hope dread Cthulhu will eat us first, of course.

According to the Nine, such punishment is more befitting a
common Moon thief. Nope, it seems they have something far
more sinister in mind for us. Be afraid. Be very afraid. 8-O
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-12-04 19:03:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 9:57:34 AM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 11:28:23 AM UTC-5, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
> >.... it is much more likely that our creators
> > created all the various lifeforms we know on our tiny little
> > planet, *NOT* because they were bored to tears and needed
> > hapless victims to project emotions upon, but simply because
> > they _could_.
> >
>
> We might not have been created by super-intelligent aliens on
> purpose, but might be the result of their not sterilizing their
> deep space probes effectively: life evolving from the remnants
> of life - the waste products, even - attached to their vehicles.
>
> Somebody at Galactic Central could be very pissed off about this,
> and may even now be florgling someone's greepnors over the fraknids,
> if that hasn't happened already!
>
> > Of course, if we accept all this creation mumbo jumbo, we
> > quickly find ourselves in the recursive tar pits of logic,
> > asking ourselves: "Who created the creators".
> >
> > As for Dawkins, his "theory" satisfies this troubling
> > question with a logical: "Our creators are an advanced form
> > of intelligence that naturally evolved". So, in this sense,
> > Dawkins, a single man, has pulled a far more plausible
> > theory out of his arse than could be gleamed by billions of
> > theists over the last umteen fucking centuries.
> >
> > But there's a darker side to this whole creation mumbo
> > jumbo...
> >
> > For if we discover one day that we are nothing but the
> > equivalent of various forms of bacteria swimming around in a
> > vat in some higher intelligence's science lab, i think the
> > theists -- who have propagated these myths underpined with
> > moral imperatives and fatherly love from "god" -- are going
> > to have a very difficult time dealing with that sort of
> > disappointment. As for us atheists, it really won't be much
> > of a big deal. Life will go on virtually unchanged. But for
> > those who dedicated their lives (and their supposed "after-
> > life") to these lies, how the hell are they going to find
> > purpose after such an earth-shattering revelation?
> >
> > If you ask me -- and being that i'm guided by a pragmatist
> > perspective, and all -- i'd say a higher intelligence could
> > make the best use of us "tiny lifeforms" by throwing us all
> > in a ziplock bag and using the bag as an ass warmer on cold
> > days. But hey, that's just if you ask me!
> >
> > In conclusion, we simply don't know enough about our
> > universe to latch on to every "feel good" theory that
> > happens to exit our anal cavity. Heck, we have not even
> > ventured beyond our own moon, and yet, these damned theist
> > have the hubris to draw definitive conclusions concerning
> > questions of such cosmic proportion.
> >
> > In the end, i think it'd be less of a blow to their ego if
> > there really is no creator at all, as i don't believe they
> > can handle living in a universe in which "the creator" is
> > indifferent to their existence and well-being.
>
.> Existential dread in the face of a ghodless universe is not
.> exactly a new thing. Maltheism or Dystheism would be an even
.> worse alternative for the ghodbots.

I always liked the idea of the demiurge. But mostly for the sound of the word.

AA

>
> Kevin R
Rick Johnson
2017-12-04 21:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6, Atlatl Axolotl wrote:

[...]

> I always liked the idea of the demiurge. But mostly for
> the sound of the word.

Indeed. It's best when drawn out to its "sophisticated extreme".

"D'MOOOUUURRRRRRGGE"
A***@yahoo.com
2017-12-07 17:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 5:28:01 AM UTC-8, Atlatl Axolotl wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:34:22 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> .> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
>
> Nothing he hasn't said before. It's simple intellectual honesty.
> Though I doubt he was talking about any specific God, whether
> OdinAllfather or Anubis or Huehuecoyatl or YHWH.
>
> In fact he had talked about a designer in an earlier interview with Ben Stein:
>
> "It could come about in the following way: it could
> be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the
> Universe, a civilization evolved by probably some
> kind of Darwinian means, to a very very high level
> of technology. And designed a form of life that
> they seeded onto, perhaps,this planet. Now that is
> a possibility and an intriguing possibility, and I
> suppose its possible you might find evidence for
> that if you look at the details of biochemistry and
> molecular biology you might find a signature of
> some sort of designer. And that designer could well
> be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the
> Universe."
>
> I've said something like that myself. Here. Repeatedly.
>

That just postpones the issue.



>
> Atlatl
Hollis Brown Jr.
2017-12-04 13:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:34:22 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html



"A 2011 study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_atheists_and_agnostics
default
2017-12-04 14:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 05:56:26 -0800 (PST), "Hollis Brown Jr."
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:34:22 AM UTC-7, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
>
>
>
>"A 2011 study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups."
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_atheists_and_agnostics

Jewish is first and foremost a political and cultural distinction, and
lastly a religious one. Ethnicity probably doesn't even enter into it
today. (in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary)
Cloud Hobbit
2017-12-07 22:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 12:34:22 AM UTC-8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

And you can't be sure he does.
v***@gmail.com
2017-12-09 08:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 2:47:06 PM UTC-8, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Monday, December 4, 2017 at 12:34:22 AM UTC-8, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
>
> And you can't be sure he does.

Dawkins wrote the book calling God a "delusion."
Loading...