News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Drew_2017

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 29, 2017, 07:38:38 PM
It only looks that was when you presume that your God exists at the start, as you apparently do.

On what basis do you make this erroneous claim? Have you not heard me agree there is evidence in favor of naturalism? I have mentioned on several occasions evidence that if it came to light would change my opinion regarding theism. I made a case for naturalism as well as theism. Since when does presumption bother you? Isn't it presumptuous to claim atheism or naturalism is the default position? Yet many of you do so proudly. And what do atheists offer in support of this claim? Babies! Yes out of the mouth of babes.

QuoteInstead, they see a zealot trying to put up a big show of evidence despite not actually presenting anything genuine and attempting to shift the burden of proof to play at being a skeptic.  All that's in evidence here is that you've managed to delude yourself, which is neither surprising nor impressive.

Its not surprising or impressive my evidence and arguments don't persuade an avowed atheist and adversary on this matter. Its expected.   
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

St Truth

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
St Truth,

The uncertainty just means neither of us really knows how the universe and our existence came about. The case I made for theism isn't based on what we don't know but what we do know.

That is my point which you seem so obtusely unable to comprehend. Atheists and theists today do not know the cause of the origin of the universe. Theists postulate that a well-developed, intelligent, conscious and complex entity called God was the cause. Theists are the ones who assert the existence of an entity in the face of man's lack of knowledge. Atheists are not proposing anything new. So, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air. Is it so hard to understand this and you claim to be a grown man?

You say the basis for your belief in God is based on what we do know. We know the universe exists. You postulate it's caused by a well-developed, intelligent, conscious and complex entity called God. You cannot use the universe as EVIDENCE for God's existence. You must show a connecting link between the two.

This is the same as the wonderful example you gave in your earlier post. You claimed that thunder is the evidence for the existence of Thor, the thunder god.  As I told you, you were wrong. It's not evidence because you must show a link between thunder and Thor. If you are unable to show a link, you can't say it's evidence.

What you are doing with the universe today is no different from what ancient folks did with thunder. It's the same god of the gaps folly that theists always fall for. You once postulated Thor's existence from the fact of thunder. You now postulate God's existence from the fact of the existing universe. If you had half the intelligence  of the average atheist, you'd blush at your own dumbness. But only you and your fellow imbecile theists will cheer each other for stating making dumb remarks.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
Maybe we share the same god...kindly benevolent mother nature who so thoughtfully caused the conditions for human existence without trying or planning to.

To all the intelligent people who know theism is a lunacy: be careful whenever a dumb theist makes such a remark. For sure he is trying to make his foolish proposition of a well-developed, intelligent, conscious and complex entity called God into something as natural as nature. You must resist it if he carries the analogy further. I, St Truth, am teaching atheists how to spot the theistic lunatic's trickery. They have no reason, no logic, no intelligence; but just a bag of tricks. The problem with atheists is they tend to be too guileless but the unintelligent theist is wily and devious and can easily do a sleight of hand to befuddle the atheist. I am the theist's nightmare because as an altar boy and a devout Christian, I'm not unfamiliar with all the tricks of the theistic trade. And I mean to expose them in all their hideous dishonesty.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
I wouldn't speak for all your fellow atheists...just yourself. I agree the forces of nature (and time for that matter) came into existence to the best of available knowledge after the big bang. Are forces we are completely unfamiliar with 'natural' also even though you have no grasp what they are? The natural supernatural delineation is just an atheist boogeyman. It only means no God nothing else.

This is the reason why Drew refuses to define God. All theists do this even on CF. They want God to be a nebulous entity that can fit into any definition. The broader God is, the easier it is to defend this fiction of theirs. This is what he's doing when he talks about the delineation between natural and supernatural. The devious theistic mind is simplistic in its dumbness -
First, scientists have postulated that there is no matter or time before the singularity of the Big Bang. Like honey to bees, this of course attracts theists to bring in their god of the gaps. So, they ask what caused the Big Bang.

The answer to that is we don't know. Once there is a lack of knowledge, theists jump for joy because their dumb God can now be slipped into the gap of human knowledge if you apply enough lubricant on the shaft of God's body. Because nature only exists after the Big Bang, the dumb theist concludes that whatever it is that causes the Big Bang MUST be supernatural. Here is where their devious refusal to define God helps. If a hitherto non-existent force was the one that caused the Big Bang, the theist will insist that this force should be labelled 'SUPERNATURAL" because it's not a part of nature since nature only exists after the Big Bang singularity. But there is a HUGE difference between postulating a hitherto unknown force AND postulating a fully developed complex multi-faceted, conscious, intelligent God with super magical powers.

But this is negating the Big Bang theory which says there is NOTHING before the Big Bang. Not even time. You can't slip God or G_d or G-d in even if you wrap him in a condom and coat him with lubricant. It's STUPID to postulate something before the Big Bang and insist it's supernatural and therefore it's God. The fact is if you follow the Big Bang theory, there should be nothing, not even time before the Big Bang. If you say there is something, then you can't use the Big Bang theory. Or you can come up with the multiverse idea of a series of universes. Again, all these do not require the postulation of a fully developed complex multi-faceted, conscious, intelligent God with super magical powers which is the brainchild of primitive imbeciles and adopted lock stock and barrel by theistic loonies.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 04:44:23 PM
It was a link which I have now inserted in my signature so you can't miss it.

Yes, I read your dumb write-up. All I have said above addresses everything raised in your write-up.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 04:44:23 PM
Knock it off with the constant demeaning comments. If you're nearly as intelligent as you think you are you won't need to use them. Secondly don't deceive yourself into thinking if you say something that I will believe it. What most of the atheists on this board call nature is anything that isn't what they call supernatural or God. If the universe came from a singularity they would still refer to that as natural causes. Do you call this other force that's not nature as we know it supernatural?   

Yes, I can understand everything that happened from the Big Bang is natural. Your question is not clearly put. If you mean to ask whether I would call the force that causes the Big Bang supernatural, my answer is as follows:

First, we don't know if there is a cause to the Big Bang in the first place. Lawrence Krauss in his book 'A Universe from Nothing' suggests that it may not have a cause from the discovery that subatomic particles have been shown to appear from nothing. I've met him at a talk and my oh my Lawrence Krauss is so intelligent that theists are not even fit to kneel down and tie his shoelaces.

Supposing we postulate that there is a cause. We would then be amending the Big Bang theory that there is NOTHING, not even time before the Big Bang. As one astrophysicist puts it, you can't even say 'before the Big Bang' because there is no before to the Big Bang. But bear in mind that all this is a theory and this is a big gap in human knowledge but please don't jump for joy and get your lubricant ready to push dumb G-d in. Yes, I wrote G-d as if God was a dirty word. LOL

I know what you are trying to do. You are hoping I'd say that the force won't be natural and so it must be supernatural. Can you not see that this again a theistic trick? You use labels to justify God's existence. If something is not natural, it must be supernatural and since God is defined as supernatural, that something must be God.

There was a time in human history when men did not know there was such a thing as the gaseous state. They could see solid and liquid states. X realises that when you boil water, a part of the liquid water disappears. Obviously it gets turned into something invisible. He insists that what is solid and liquid are 'natural'. So when we boil water, natural matter (ie water) gets turned into the supernatural. Ergo, God exists because if you say there is in existence something which is not natural, ie supernatural, similarly the theist can say God (who is supernatural) exists.

But this is the flaw in the theist's argument from labels or in its proper Latin name, argumentum ad labellum. Haha, am I not witty? Because in the ancient world, natural things are things that exist in solid and liquid forms. So gas is supernatural and if I say the gaseous state exists, what is to prevent the theist from saying God exists?

It's the same with the argument about the cause of the Big Bang. It's plausible that outside of our current understanding of what is natural, there are other forces that exist before the singularity. But calling these forces supernatural will only lead the theist to slip in his lubricated phallic God into the picture. That is why labels are so useful to the theist. But it's dishonest because just as the ancient guy names the gaseous state 'supernatural', the theist today names a force that we know nothing of today 'supernatural'.

This is why Drew refuses to define his God. Because it would become clear when the term supernatural is used for the intelligent person to see that there is a huge difference between a hitherto unknown force and a fully developed complex intelligent conscious God with magical powers. To call both by the same label 'supernatural' will only afford the theist to use their favourite argumentum ad labellum.

One other thing we have to be careful about as intelligent atheists is the stupidity of theists. It takes a lot of my time to explain simple things to Drew and other theists. And sometimes they just don't seem to get it. I used to think they were dishonest and that made me angry but now I'm not so sure if it's really obstinate obtuseness. I'm beginning to think that maybe they really are too stupid to follow intelligent atheist arguments. I don't argue with Baruch any more because he is incoherent, irrelevant and I honestly doubt his sanity. Drew is certainly sane but he doesn't seem to understand intelligent arguments. I hope the above is clear and he will understand now why he is really doing the god of the gaps argument here.

Drew_2017

St Truth

The uncertainty just means neither of us really knows how the universe and our existence came about. The case I made for theism isn't based on what we don't know but what we do know.


QuoteAtheists and theists today do not know the cause of the origin of the universe.

Right which is why I didn't cite the creation of the universe as evidence just the fact it exists.

QuoteSo, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air.

You were handed your head on this very issue are you coming back for more?

You wrote...

QuoteThe burden of proof of the Apollo moon landing is on the party that asserts it happened. The burden is not on anyone else. This is as simple as ABC. Hence the burden of showing that there was a moon-landing rests squarely on the shoulder of the party that asserts it - in this case, it's NASA.

Baloney. The people who claim the USA didn't land on the moon have an equal burden of evidence if they want to sell that notion to the public. Same for people who offensively claim the Holocaust never happened. I know this is gospel truth in atheist culture that negative claims don't bear a burden but its so nonsensical its sad you don't take any time to apply a modicum of skepticism to all the atheists arguments you have regurgitated thus far.

QuoteNASA did discharge the burden by showing clear evidence of the flight and landing. The entire trip to the moon was filmed and the whole world watched it. The entire event is recorded in peer reviewed journals of astronomy. I know all this because my grandparents saw the whole thing on TV. It was that long ago - even before my parents' time. But the evidence was copious and monumental.

Wonderful I'll play the atheist role. Are you so moronic that you believe videos produced by (the very people we accuse of a hoax) were real? How can you be that freaking stupid? Do you deny NASA has a massive budget and could easily recreate the landing in a studio? Yet you're so naive you accept a video made by NASA as evidence. Do you even know what evidence is! If you actually do have some evidence (direct indisputable undeniable incontestable facts) let me know...

Do you ever wonder why there aren't more atheists (considering the preponderance of evidence in favor of the proposition)? I'll give you one clue the absurd notion you have no evidentiary obligation to cite your evidence and make a case in favor of what you believe. You sound like a juvenile baby to constantly whine over and over how a theist has to provide evidence. I made my case on 6 undisputed facts no reference to gaps at all. If you want anyone besides the group of loyal atheists to think you have a case you'll have to try harder than whining and moaning.


Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

St Truth

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 11:37:36 PM
St Truth

The uncertainty just means neither of us really knows how the universe and our existence came about. The case I made for theism isn't based on what we don't know but what we do know.

I have already shown you why your statement is stupid and unthinking. The fact of the existence of the universe cannot be evidence for God just as thunder cannot be evidence for Thor.

Are you really stupid or are you just dishonest?

You must be the undisputed Moron in AF. Were you born stupid or did you become stupid for God? Read my last post again and use a dictionary if you can't understand what you read. You really need to grow a brain. I mean a real human brain.

I have addressed every stupid point you made and if you can't understand it, then go get a lobotomy. Take your medication and you'll be right as rain.

Cavebear

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Drew_2017

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 01:06:59 AM
I have already shown you why your statement is stupid and unthinking. The fact of the existence of the universe cannot be evidence for God just as thunder cannot be evidence for Thor.

I know the game St Truth, demand evidence and reject any. The atheist position can be summed up in one sentence.

Theism is bunk, Drew's a punk. If only that brilliant deduction convinced anyone except fully committed born again atheists you'd have something. 

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

St Truth

Quote from: Drew_2017 on October 01, 2017, 08:58:27 AM
I know the game St Truth, demand evidence and reject any. The atheist position can be summed up in one sentence.

Theism is bunk, Drew's a punk. If only that brilliant deduction convinced anyone except fully committed born again atheists you'd have something.

Not just that. You are a liar. You knew you were banned. You circumvented the ban and came back. And you are still spouting inanities and refusing to take on any argument. You just want to preach your stupid God in the hope that there are converts to your filthy religion and insane belief.

You came back despite a ban.

Cavebear

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 09:03:16 AM
Not just that. You are a liar. You knew you were banned. You circumvented the ban and came back. And you are still spouting inanities and refusing to take on any argument. You just want to preach your stupid God in the hope that there are converts to your filthy religion and insane belief.

You came back despite a ban.

I'll agree with that.  It doesn't seem like Drew learned anything while banned.  I wouldn't personally say "filthy" religion, but "stupid" sounds about right.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

St Truth

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 09:13:36 AM
I'll agree with that.  It doesn't seem like Drew learned anything while banned.  I wouldn't personally say "filthy" religion, but "stupid" sounds about right.

Stupid filthy religion. I'm so glad there is no rule against blasphemy. As Dawkins points out once, blasphemy is a victim-less offence because bloody God, G-d, Allah, Zeus, etc don't exist. Blasphemy is a good exercise. It reminds people that filthy God doesn't exist. Because if pig-like Allah exists, wouldn't he have struck me dead? Or if that monkey YHWH or Yahweh exists, would he not have turned me into a pillar of salt as he supposedly did to Lot's wife? Or if the Holy Fart of the Heavenly Father (aka the Holy Spirit) exists, wouldn't he strike me dead as he supposedly did to two persons for not giving all their money to the church (See Acts 5)? Someone in CF asked me if I had a relationship with Jesus. I wanted to tell her I was not gay and even if I were, I wouldn't choose a freak who died 2000 years ago. I can't have a relationship with his ashes, can I? LOL

Blasphemy is an effective way to put religionists in their places. Sometimes, it's the only cure for their lunacy.

Baruch

#399
St Truth  - "I'm so glad there is no rule against blasphemy" ... of course, this is an atheist forum.  When I was about 12, my friends thought it was cute to blaspheme too.  You will get over it ;-)  Also glad there is no rule against heresy ... otherwise I couldn't post either.  Heresy is more adult.

St Truth - "So, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air." ... actually the traditional naturalist POV was that the universe was eternal.  This is why, in opposition to an eternal yet natural universe, theist had to move to the creation ex nihilo position.  Of course this predates you by 1500 years, so I am not surprised you didn't remember it ;-)  Originally gods created the universe from something else, they converted Chaos to Cosmos.  Monotheist theologians messed with scripture.  Polytheists don't have this need to oversimplify ;-)  If you count people as demigods, then I am a polytheist.

Fact is, as Drew and the others recognize ... we don't really know the Big Bang very well, not before the 3.5K radiation ... we extrapolate before that, and quantum cosmology attempts, and fails, to extrapolate that all the way back.  We in fact do not know that the observed universe was originated as ex nihilo, we in fact don't know if there is even one universe ... there may be an infinity of them (see Rick & Morty).  This is why any argument, based on cosmology, is lame.  The only fact you can claim is that 3.5K radiation and what observably comes after that.  There is no prior observation, though gravity waves have been attempted to be used to understand the fine structure of that radiation, but in any case, it would be an extrapolation ... hence not real observational science.  Indirectly, the calculated?? abundance of H and He and a little Li ... which have changed in the last 13+ billion years ... as it was at the time of the 3.5K radiation, is suggestive of what happened earlier.  Also particle physics is suggestive of what happened earlier (see Steven Weinberg "The First Three Minutes").  But we really can't say, because an event in the LHC ... is so much quantitatively tinier ... we don't know what would happen if you scaled it up.  Of course scientists aren't skeptical, their livelihood depends on telling governments that what they are doing is uncovering unlimited power ... for governments to use (see Manhattan Project).  So if I knew a water molecule well, and I know a person is 70% water, I can deduce what a human is like?

BBC gives us the holy writ of cosmologists, except it is bunk.  With holy music ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6VmOiGeykU
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

#400
Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 10:25:01 AM

BBC gives us the holy writ of cosmologists, except it is bunk.  With holy music ...


Baruch, I am surprised.  You know the laws of debate better than that.  The original claim must be supported or it fails.

In this case, the original claim is that a deity created the universe.  You can't win the debate by claiming the other side hasn't proven the argument.  Science is by nature, provisional according to the available facts.  It makes no claim to The Truth.  It is merely "here is what we think, so far".

Religion is a statement of The Truth saying that a deity of some sort created the universe.  Prove it or get out of town man...

You (of all people) know what I mean here.  The burden of proof lays on the original proponent.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 10:25:01 AM
St Truth  - "I'm so glad there is no rule against blasphemy" ... of course, this is an atheist forum.  When I was about 12, my friends thought it was cute to blaspheme too.  You will get over it ;-)  Also glad there is no rule against heresy ... otherwise I couldn't post either.  Heresy is more adult.

Theist's Trick No. 1: Denigrate your opponent and make him appear insignificant. That is why you mentioned 12 year olds. You thought I would be hopping mad. No, I'm not angry. I just went to the toilet and excreted YHWH into the toilet bowl. It depends on my mood. Sometimes, I excrete YHWH and sometimes the Trinity. Sometimes, when I've eaten something really rotten and uncooked, it's Allah that gets purged out. Oh sorry! You guys worship my excrement. I'll flush the toilet more reverentially next time. In case you don't know, YHWH is Yahweh or G-d (the dirty word) - that's the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (what a dumb way of describing himself). In fact he gets dumber when he calls himself 'I am that I am'.

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 10:25:01 AM
St Truth - "So, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air." ... actually the traditional naturalist POV was that the universe was eternal.  This is why, in opposition to an eternal yet natural universe, theist had to move to the creation ex nihilo position.  Of course this predates you by 1500 years, so I am not surprised you didn't remember it ;-)  Originally gods created the universe from something else, they converted Chaos to Cosmos.  Monotheist theologians messed with scripture.  Polytheists don't have this need to oversimplify ;-)  If you count people as demigods, then I am a polytheist.

Fact is, as Drew and the others recognize ... we don't really know the Big Bang very well, not before the 3.5K radiation ... we extrapolate before that, and quantum cosmology attempts, and fails, to extrapolate that all the way back.  We in fact do not know that the observed universe was originated as ex nihilo, we in fact don't know if there is even one universe ... there may be an infinity of them (see Rick & Morty).  This is why any argument, based on cosmology, is lame.  The only fact you can claim is that 3.5K radiation and what observably comes after that.  There is no prior observation, though gravity waves have been attempted to be used to understand the fine structure of that radiation, but in any case, it would be an extrapolation ... hence not real observational science.  Indirectly, the calculated?? abundance of H and He and a little Li ... which have changed in the last 13+ billion years ... as it was at the time of the 3.5K radiation, is suggestive of what happened earlier.  Also particle physics is suggestive of what happened earlier (see Steven Weinberg "The First Three Minutes").  But we really can't say, because an event in the LHC ... is so much quantitatively tinier ... we don't know what would happen if you scaled it up.  Of course scientists aren't skeptical, their livelihood depends on telling governments that what they are doing is uncovering unlimited power ... for governments to use (see Manhattan Project).  So if I knew a water molecule well, and I know a person is 70% water, I can deduce what a human is like?

Drew (the guy who was banned but who lied in the name of the Holy Spirit aka the Holy Flatulence of the Fat Father and jesus) actually wrote in one post that thunder is the evidence for Thor. He then said the universe is the evidence for God. As I have explained, this is nothing more than the God of the gaps argument. Drew is rubbing lubricant on his God and trying to penetrate God into the gaps in the knowledge of science. But it won't work. His limp God just can't get into the gaps. Boy! I'm quite witty in my blasphemy.

Cavebear

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 11:23:28 AM
Theist's Trick No. 1: Denigrate your opponent and make him appear insignificant. That is why you mentioned 12 year olds. You thought I would be hopping mad. No, I'm not angry. I just went to the toilet and excreted YHWH into the toilet bowl. It depends on my mood. Sometimes, I excrete YHWH and sometimes the Trinity. Sometimes, when I've eaten something really rotten and uncooked, it's Allah that gets purged out. Oh sorry! You guys worship my excrement. I'll flush the toilet more reverentially next time. In case you don't know, YHWH is Yahweh or G-d (the dirty word) - that's the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (what a dumb way of describing himself). In fact he gets dumber when he calls himself 'I am that I am'.

Drew (the guy who was banned but who lied in the name of the Holy Spirit aka the Holy Flatulence of the Fat Father and jesus) actually wrote in one post that thunder is the evidence for Thor. He then said the universe is the evidence for God. As I have explained, this is nothing more than the God of the gaps argument. Drew is rubbing lubricant on his God and trying to penetrate God into the gaps in the knowledge of science. But it won't work. His limp God just can't get into the gaps. Boy! I'm quite witty in my blasphemy.

And usually erudite and clever for a 16 year old...  (*coff, coff*)
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 10:47:46 AM
Baruch, I am surprised.  You know the laws of debate better than that.  The original claim must be supported or it fails.

In this case, the original claim is that a deity created the universe.  You can't win the debate by claiming the other side hasn't proven the argument.  Science is by nature, provisional according to the available facts.  It makes no claim to The Truth.  It is merely "here is what we think, so far".

Religion is a statement of The Truth saying that a deity of some sort created the universe.  Prove it or get out of town man...

You (of all people) know what I mean here.  The burden of proof lays on the original proponent.

Robert's Rule Of Order die when we draw switchblades.  This is West Side Story, not HS Student Council.  Unfortunately, as many proponents don't get what they propose ... theist or atheist ... we get lost in the weeds of ignorance.  Scientism takes science as revealed truth ala Pythagoras/Plato ... it isn't about actual modern science at all, but about "I am a Brite and you are a Dim" penis size comparisons.  Those geeks, always a male teen inside.  And as I pointed out elsewhere not 1/10 religious people know what prayer is all about.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

sdelsolray

#404
Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 11:23:28 AM
Theist's Trick No. 1: Denigrate your opponent and make him appear insignificant.
...

The actual evidence (i.e., your posts on this forum) reveals you "[d]enigrate your opponent and (attempt to) make him appear insignificant."  Does that make you a theist who utilizes "Theist's Trick No. 1", at least according to you?