Dear anyone atheist here, are you really so deaf and mute and blind that you are reduced into vegetative condition, as you have not contributed any thought from your otherwise precious brain, to enable folks to know what is any idea from your otherwise precious brain, something that indicates that you do think at all.
Tell you what, as atheists are always in re arguing against God existing, but with silly nonsense utterances that make no sense at all, suppose you now explain to honestly intelligently and productively thinking mankind, what you all mean, with insisting that you don't have the burden to defend your position as atheist, since you don't make any claim, but God knowers must like one Marius Dejess who expound on the existence of God.
Come out from your hiding dungeon of deafness, muteness, and blindness, and explain why you have no sense of any shred of human personhood, unless you inform mankind why you don't justify your identity as atheist, with at least some intelligible account of why and how you call yourselves atheist.
Or is it the case that calling yourselves atheist is your way of being brainless, so that folks can just not even take any notice that you are existing at all?
Okay, come forth and explain what do you mean with calling yourselves atheist!
.
- May 4, 2000
- 16,069
- 7,366
- 146
Atheists just do nothing in re genuine exposition of their why and how they get themselves to call themselves atheist.
With the so self described as American Atheists, they arm themselves with this semantic nonsense,* like:
A lack of belief in gods. Intellecltual cowards, just say you deny gods exist.
It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Again, intellectual cowards, just say you deny gods exist.
They might as well declare that atheists are just simply lacking a or with them is an absence of a brain to do honest intelligent productive thinking, as to know and be able to give an account of why and how they get to call themselves atheist.
The so self called American atheists lack a brain that is why folks should not at all ask them why and how they get to call themselves atheist.
Or they are robots whose human masters did not program them correctly, so they engage in such semantically empty speech, as that they just lack a brain that results in - no not denial, but absence of belief in gods, or -no not existence of gods, but rejection of assertion i.e. a verbal proposition.
.
'
.
*https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
.
With the so self described as American Atheists, they arm themselves with this semantic nonsense,* like:
A lack of belief in gods. Intellecltual cowards, just say you deny gods exist.
It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Again, intellectual cowards, just say you deny gods exist.
They might as well declare that atheists are just simply lacking a or with them is an absence of a brain to do honest intelligent productive thinking, as to know and be able to give an account of why and how they get to call themselves atheist.
The so self called American atheists lack a brain that is why folks should not at all ask them why and how they get to call themselves atheist.
Or they are robots whose human masters did not program them correctly, so they engage in such semantically empty speech, as that they just lack a brain that results in - no not denial, but absence of belief in gods, or -no not existence of gods, but rejection of assertion i.e. a verbal proposition.
.
'
.
*https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
.
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 3,847
- 655
- 126
How did I dismiss the theory?
I only said that a theory is by default unproven,we have no proof and we never will have any.
We do have strong evidence leaning towards this theory being true but that's a different thing.
Also, from your link.If something is proven you can't modify or reject it, you have proof that it is so.
"The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; "
How did you? You didn't even learn how to spell school!
TheELF
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2012
- 3,847
- 655
- 126
Meh,the biggest reason for so many atheists is that religion screwed mankind over for almost 2000 years now,looking at how ridiculous and how hateful religion treats anybody that is different is enough to turn any person with half a brain away from religion,which explains the quality of person you find trying to convert atheists and persons of different believes.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 69,595
- 5,040
- 126
A Theory is our best understanding of something. There is no such thing as a "Proof" in Science.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 29,062
- 6,312
- 136
I went to my attic and searched for god and didn't find one, therefore god doesnt exist.
Nice one op! You disproved the existence of god.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 91,142
- 12,729
- 126
- Oct 10, 1999
- 30,407
- 11,718
- 136
not sure if trolling or just ignorant.
A scientific theory is the proven repeatable explanation of a hypothesis. If some new facts are discovered then the theory is modified to fit the newly discovered facts once they are verified and repeatable.
That is how science works.
Faith doesn't work like that. Faith is never changed or altered to suit new evidence or facts. Faith lives in a state of denial.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 30,407
- 11,718
- 136
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 13,974
- 4,111
- 136
I can take you into my attic to look for a waffle iron, and we can look all around and I promise you will not find one. Is that then proof that waffle irons don't exist?
This is why lack of positive evidence is not evidence of the negative. Not finding a waffle iron in my attic does not prove that there are no such thing as a waffle iron, nor does it lend evidence of there being a waffle iron. The ONLY thing we can say is that my attic does not have a waffle iron in it. If we search a dozen other attics and don't find one we can say that waffle irons are probably not found in attics. Evidence is additive. One data point rarely tells us anything.
I am truly sorry that someone convinced you that admitting that you don't know something is intellectual cowardness. There is nothing wrong with stating that I don't know.
I don't need to deny gods existence any more than I need to deny the belief in any other of the literally infinity ideas. The fact is I don't have any real reason to think one exists. So, why would I even waste my time on it? There is literally an infinite amount of things I don't believe in.
And yes, atheisms talks of faith. It is the answer to the question if you have faith in god, not if you believe he exists. I actually know some atheists who believe that a god exists, they just don't have any faith in the god they think exists.
My problem with God (and religion) is this: I see babies being born with birth defects. I see cancers in children. I see wars, famines and terrible people being elevated to positions of power. I can draw two conclusions. That there is no God. Or that the God we have is incompetent, distant and remote, and therefore unworthy of worship.
Mai72
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2012
- 11,407
- 1,644
- 126
Good video.
Religious people are extremely dogmatic, and do not like to be challanged. They also love to fear monger. Everyone is bound for hell except for them because of their belief in Jesus. Yet, they'll do things that are wrong like judging others. The reason why I dismissed my religion (Catholism) is because it's very ethnocentric. It never takes into affect other cultures, and just dismisses those as beneath them. Native Americans for example. Indians, Asians, Africans, etc. Many cultures have existed throughout time, and many have had their own religion. What makes their religion so wrong?
When you get down to it, you see that religion was used for thousands of years to control others. Priest were very powerful back in ancient times. A tornado hits the village? That was God's wrath. A drought that wiped out 90% of the crops? God is pissed. Etc.. Also, much of Christanity is just fear mongering. They want control.
.
Atheists to my unbiased observation should call themselves anti-religionists, in particular anti the religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
I call my concept of God as the generic concept of God, namely, God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.
This concept of God is generic in the sense that it first and foremost describes the feature of God, by which God deserves to be noticed by mankind, namely, that He is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning - that is the feature common to all three monotheistic religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.
If God is not the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning, I and people like myself, we will not bother with taking notice of God.
Now, atheists actually hate religion instead of God, but since religion is cultivated by fellow humans who are family members, friends, fellow workers, etc., they re-direct their hatred toward God: and God happens to be also from man's attribution the author of all kinds of commandments of Thou shalt not this and Thou shalt not that, etc. and etc. and etc., this kind of God is inimical in particular to all kinds of libertinism of man, in regard particularly to sexual activities outside of marriage, and also all kinds of 'unnatural' sex pleasures which are called in the Christian, Islamic, and Judaic religions, sexual perversions or abominations.
.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 30,407
- 11,718
- 136
yada yada yada
This thread is now about homemade chocolate brownies with walnuts and frosting.
- May 4, 2000
- 16,069
- 7,366
- 146
Dear Smog, the fact is that atheists' arguments against God are all various empty evasions, like they are not bound to prove God does not exist, because the burden is on the party making the claim God exists.
But atheists conveniently sneak away from the obligation on their part to explain why they do deny God to exist - perhaps against this obligation they will insist that they just happen to be bereft of reason - reason dictates that a homo sapiens must explain why and how he is against something, while another homo sapiens must explain why and how he is in favor of the same something.
Now the next convenient evasion of atheists as to not have to explain why they do not search with knowers of God evidence for God's existence, is that man cannot prove a negative proposition, which is founded on the impossibility of man to search the whole universe in the course of a man's lifetime.
So, atheists' very loud proclamation that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition is busted conspicuously by pointing out to atheists, that you must indicate where and when you cannot prove a negative, namely, in the whole of the universe, but not within the circumstances of limited where and when, for example: you and I we can prove there is no zebra in my or your attic today, okay?
Tell you what, Smog, let you present one argument from atheists that you think is the best, and we will examine it together, okay?
.
.
.
But atheists conveniently sneak away from the obligation on their part to explain why they do deny God to exist - perhaps against this obligation they will insist that they just happen to be bereft of reason - reason dictates that a homo sapiens must explain why and how he is against something, while another homo sapiens must explain why and how he is in favor of the same something.
Now the next convenient evasion of atheists as to not have to explain why they do not search with knowers of God evidence for God's existence, is that man cannot prove a negative proposition, which is founded on the impossibility of man to search the whole universe in the course of a man's lifetime.
So, atheists' very loud proclamation that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition is busted conspicuously by pointing out to atheists, that you must indicate where and when you cannot prove a negative, namely, in the whole of the universe, but not within the circumstances of limited where and when, for example: you and I we can prove there is no zebra in my or your attic today, okay?
Tell you what, Smog, let you present one argument from atheists that you think is the best, and we will examine it together, okay?
.
.
.
.
sdifox
No Lifer
- Sep 30, 2005
- 91,142
- 12,729
- 126
Just remember this one does not have Eris pads her chest.
Last edited:
Okay, Oh ye all my opponents and atheists, please present your most best argument against the existence of God.
.
.
- May 4, 2000
- 16,069
- 7,366
- 146
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,303
- 7,888
- 126
- May 4, 2000
- 16,069
- 7,366
- 146
I've gotta agree with that.brownies should not have nuts.
I have proof that walnuts in brownies ruin it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 20K
-
Solved! Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 12K
-
-
-
Question Geekbench 6 released and calibrated against Core i7-12700
- Started by igor_kavinski
- Replies: 275
Facebook
Twitter