You say that there is a god...

[dybmh]

Winner frubal.

The quality of your posts is remarkable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Winner frubal.

The problem is that real has no objective referent. That same with winner. That is a subjective judgment.

 

[dybmh]

The problem is that real has no objective referent. That same with winner. That is a subjective judgment.

It's not even subjective. It's an autonomous response like blinking.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The problem is that real has no objective referent. That same with winner. That is a subjective judgment.

Well, that's your personal opinion, just as I shared my personal opinion by giving @F1fan a winner frubal.

 

[Eli G]

Oh Lord, these children, so childish!

When are these atheists and their bots going to learn that likes add or rest nothing to truth?

 

[Audie]

Oh Lord, these children, so childish!

When are these atheists and their bots going to learn that likes add or rest nothing to truth?

And yet flood- belief is not childish.

 

[dybmh]

Well, that's your personal opinion, just as I shared my personal opinion by giving @F1fan a winner frubal.

Your vote of support doesn't mean very much since you are ignoring anything which challenges it.

The opinion you're expressing is: "rah-rah" then you're doing the splits. To encourage team-atheist. But it has nothing to do with merit.

 

[dybmh]

And yet flood- belief is not childish.

Of course it is! Your obsession with it says more about you than anyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh Lord, these children, so childish!

When are these atheists and their bots going to learn that likes add or rest nothing to truth?

When are you going to learn that unsupported claims are of no value?

 

[ppp]

Oh Lord, these children, so childish!

When are these atheists and their bots going to learn that likes add or rest nothing to truth?

We click 'like' solely to annoy you personally, @Eli G . It is part of the secret atheist charter. Item number 8 after Order Pizza For Dinner and right before Arrange Bookshelf in Alphabetical Order. So you see...we have no choice.

 

[dybmh]

When are you going to learn that unsupported claims are of no value?

@Eli G is right.

If the Atheists all ignore everything that challenges them, then the likes become worthless and the conversation is nothing but an echo-chamber. You can already see this happening. And there really isn't anything to discuss with atheism.. Its boring. Its nothing.

The ignore feature at first glance seems like a victory, but it's actually a retreat. The person has muted themself. And it shows they are just on the hunt for a weak victim, but cannot tolerate anything that challenges their postion.

Any intellignt person seeing "woohoo-winner" will be completely unaffected knowing that the person is not actually reading anything. Even the poster who recieves the "woohoo" knows that person doesn't have anything else to contribute. So how valuable is that woohoo? Is there any substance behind it at all. It's just homer simpson seeing a donut. Nothing more.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is the claim you said was "close enough".

No, it's not. Your "close enough" rendering of my comment was already incorrect, which is why I didn't say it was correct, and you've changed my words further yet now with, "you cannot know what's happening with everyone everywhere."

You apparently have difficulty holding a concept in mind without it morphing into something different without you noticing, but you're not alone. Most theists can't hold the idea that atheists are people who reject god claims and convert it into atheists claiming that gods don't exist. You tell them the first and they "repeat" it back with the second. And, of course, one wouldn't be interested in the conclusions such people arrive at any more than the sums somebody who can't copy a number without changing it arrive at.

I did paraphrase it and you agreed.

No, I did not. Plus, you've changed it again since then.

Your claim to know the nature of everyone's internal religious experiences without meeting each person or understanding what they're saying from their context. That is one of the most outrageous claims ever.

Incorrect again. Why don't you find the original claim to which you objected and quote it. Then put it next to your first attempt at paraphrasing it, and then your second. You'll probably be able to see the evolution, but even if not, others will.

The problem you seem to be having, is you do not understand how much evidence is needed to justify what you're claiming

I don't have a problem. It's you that's in conflict with multiple participants in the thread now. It's you that's complaining. And you are not a sound thinker. Why would I take advice or criticism from you?

You asked for advice on a public forum. You literally asked "What should I do if..."

You're going to need to quote that in full and link to it. I don't ask for advice here.

Atheists are inherently amoral. There is nothing moral about atheism.

This is an example of your lack of rigor in thought. You've conflated atheists and atheism. Atheism is not a moral system, but atheists are moral agents. Inherently.

Anytime they demonize belief they're proving God exists.

Here's more fallacious thinking. Didn't you deny believing in spirits? Now you're a theist again? Not to worry. I didn't believe you.

You don't know what a god is.

Not your call. Your definition of a god might be of interest to you, but that would be about it.

What you're observing is actually evidence of God.

"God"? Do you mean the Abrahamic god? Ready to throw another conniption? That god has been ruled out.

What you don't understand and @F1fan and @Sgt. Pepper don't understand is, God is not the buddhist-god named "void". Their god is nothingness which leads to annihilation of the self.

"Their god"? "Annihilation of the self?" More bad thinking. Both of those posters are intelligent, decent, well-adjusted, confident people who, like me, will tell you that their lives are better outside of Abrahamic religion than within it. You do, however, and the imprint of theistic thought is apparent.

It's obvious to anyone who knows what a god is, that non-belief is submitting to a void.

Obvious? Submitting to a void? More bad thinking. Humanism sets the standard for human intellectual and moral excellence. Submitting to a god-belief cannot

You don't know me.

I know much about how you think and much about your disposition. I expect you to continue to make mistakes like the ones noted here. I expect you to transform ideas unwittingly and make false claims, and I expect you to commit the kinds of logical fallacies and fantastic claims you have here. Little else matters in the context of RF posting. I also expect you to become agitated intermittently, but that's of little import to others.

 

[dybmh]

We click 'like' solely to annoy you personally, @Eli G . It is part of the secret atheist charter. Item number 8 after Order Pizza For Dinner and right before Arrange Bookshelf in Alphabetical Order. So you see...we have no choice.

And it is literally meaningless if none of you can stand up to real opposition. All you seem to have is wanna-be-school-teacher grammar advice. And of course lying about whether or not you understand what's being said.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

When are you going to learn that unsupported claims are of no value?

I don't believe it's possible to reason with someone who responds with snide and antagonistic remarks rather than with reasonable counterarguments. If a person behaves this poorly online, I shudder to think what kind of person they are in real life. They must be insufferable. I wouldn't want to know them.

 

[lukethethird]

LOL. You just admitted that you are unable to comprehend past a 4 year-old. And @F1fan agrees. Good for you both.

Your assertion, "it never gets more complicated" has been proven false. I asked you once, I don't think you responded.

How does an absolutely infinite god produce a reality which includes material muliplicity? Is it an easy concept? Something you would teach to a 4 year old? Do you have children? Do you know what a 4 year old is capable of? Do you know what you're talking about at all?

Oh such big words, does that line of gibberish impress you? It might impress a four year old, but it remains to be an utterly meaningless load of gibberish just the same. Go ahead, explain it to me as if I am four years old, I would love to read that.

 

[Eli G]

Deleted for repetition

 

[dybmh]

No, it's not. Your "close enough" rendering of my comment was already incorrect, which is why I didn't say it was correct, and you've changed my words further yet now with, "you cannot know what's happening with everyone everywhere."

Ah-ah. Naughty naughty humanist. You are fibbing fibbing fibbing.

You're either not remembering clearly, which undemines your argument of being a near perfect "thinker", and also undermines your claim of being able to accurately recall what happened all those years ago. OR Your lacking moral integrity which also undermines all of your arguments.

The screenshot does not lie. I paraphrased correctly you said it was close enough. Your desire to change it is a concession. I actually don't care if you are able to admit it. I'm curious if you'll make the necessary adjustments to avoid sounding like... well... they way you sounded.

Post#376 - link

You apparently have difficulty holding a concept in mind without it morphing into something different without you noticing, but you're not alone. Most theists can't hold the idea that atheists are people who reject god claims and convert it into atheists claiming that gods don't exist. You tell them the first and they "repeat" it back with the second. And, of course, one wouldn't be interested in the conclusions such people arrive at any more than the sums somebody who can't copy a number without changing it arrive at.

Weird. I never said anything like that. Nor did I imply it. In fact I am on the record saying the opposite. Atheism is nothing, a non-thing. It doesn't mean or say anything. it is completely amoral. ( which explains the dishonesty in this thread ).

And, since here you are complaining about not holding a concept in mind, and changing things, while simultaneaously not holding what I said and changing it, you are reaffirming that absolute hypocrisy that inevitably leaks out of your posts. Well. Here it's gushing out.

No, I did not. Plus, you've changed it again since then.

That's a total lie. The screenshot is above.

Incorrect again. Why don't you find the original claim to which you objected and quote it. Then put it next to your first attempt at paraphrasing it, and then your second. You'll probably be able to see the evolution, but even if not, others will.

I have multiple times. You poor thing. I even gave you the post number.

I said

Your argument is, "I know what's happening with everyone's spiritual experiences because I know myself."

You said

Not exactly, but that's close enough.

Even if you try to backpeddle, and say "I didn't mean it that way", it's still obvious to anyone reading that this was your original intention.

And anyone who is aware of what your avatar means, and then reads your description of your so-called religious experience, which you still partake in *wink-wink*, will recognize immediately the high probablity that you are under the influence *wink-wink* that a marijuana experience = a religious experience.

Any time you might, theoretically, be puffing down on some Mexicali, you not only would be reinforcing this fake conception of others. But weed is known to produce delusions of grandeur.

Again, it's the base rate fallacy, your conclusion is based on a rather specific set of circumstances and you are ignoring the *actual* diversity of the general population of people who believe in god.

I don't have a problem. It's you that's in conflict with multiple participants in the thread now. It's you that's complaining. And you are not a sound thinker. Why would I take advice or criticism from you?

I am in conflict with the others because they are exposing their own hypocrisy, ignorance and arrogance. And @ppp, has been proven to be dishonest. This supports what i said that Atheism has no moral backbone at all. There is nothing good about it.

If I use your own metrics for why YOU are qualified to give advice, and why YOU consider your self a good thinker. I meet or exceed you in each and every catagory. You have no clue how unbelievably successful I am in my life. All of it earned. I accomplished all of it and had children, increasing the difficulty tremendously. And I didn't jump ship to Mexico so that my dollars could be stretched to support early retirement. I maintained a marriage. I adapted, I overcame obstacles you are completely unaware of. I suffered probably more than you can imagine. And I rose above all of it. There were times I would eat 1 meal a day so I could stay in college without accruing debt. Did you do that?

You're going to need to quote that in full and link to it. I don't ask for advice here.

Well, you did. But you phased as a "well what would you do if you were me?" It's above. Kind of funny that you are now claiming that your question in that post wasn't actually a question at all, just preaching the gospel of your own god-like-prowess ( which is likely coming from weed. )

This is an example of your lack of rigor in thought. You've conflated atheists and atheism. Atheism is not a moral system, but atheists are moral agents. Inherently.

That's exactly what I said. They are the moral agents that choose on a case by case basis. Atheism is nothing. It has no meaning and basically no value.

Here's more fallacious thinking. Didn't you deny believing in spirits? Now you're a theist again? Not to worry. I didn't believe you.

I don't believe in spirits. You don't speak the language, so you cannot interpret what it means. Of course I'm a theist. I've always been a theist. Your comprehension is void.

Not your call. Your definition of a god might be of interest to you, but that would be about it.

Then anything you say about yourself is not your call either. See how you cant stop undermining your argument. The only way to proceed is a double-standard.

Atheism is a belief in a god, actually multiple gods. And they serve them with absolute devotion. Serving them produces denial and ignorance, and arrogance. It's the same set of gods that are being invoked and possessing science deniers. That's what makes it so hi-tootin-larious to llisten to some of you bloviate about your critical thinking and criticissing the creationsists. You're both doing almost the same exact thing.

"God"? Do you mean the Abrahamic god? Ready to throw another conniption? That god has been ruled out.

Yes God. But it's not the God you imagine in your apparent drug induced fantasy world. You can't rule out something you cannot define, you cannot see, you cannot understand. What ever it is you think you're ruling out, is not it. Obviously.

"Their god"? "Annihilation of the self?" More bad thinking. Both of those posters are intelligent, decent, well-adjusted, confident people who, like me, will tell you that their lives are better outside of Abrahamic religion than within it. You do, however, and the imprint of theistic thought is apparent.

Yes their god is void. So is yours. It's not the only one ya'all serve either. Remember, you have no credibility on defining anything anymore. You have no authority to correct anyone anymore. You said

Not your call. Your definition of a god might be of interest to you, but that would be about it.

So. Yup! It's not your call. You don't know what a god is, how a god works. How it operates in the brain. You definitly dont seem to know anything about buddhism, how it works, its limitations or scope of effect.

Obvlious? Submitting to a void? More bad thinking. Humanism sets the standard for human intellectual and moral excellence. Submitting to a god-belief cannot

Hee. God, capital "G" god belief includes all of that, but is not limited by it. Humanism is a tiny little soap bubble in comparison. And since you have been dishonest and arrogant, what ever it is you're serving, is not excellent.

I know much about how you think and much about your disposition.

LOL. There's that Satan rising. Oooooh. I'm so scared of you. Oooooh. Your so beastly. You know so much. But we've proven you don't.

Pop. There goes your little soap-bubble.

I expect you to continue to make mistakes like the ones noted here.

But you were wrong on all counts Dr. I definitley paraphrased your claim. You definitly accepted. I already gave you a screenshot and apost number. You definitley did ask for advice. But apparetntly that was a lie, you were preaching, and pretending to ask a question. So the other poster who replied was actually responding to a void. I did not mistake atheist and atheism. What I said perfectly matched what you said.

Every argument you've made undermines your claim that "You know what's happening with everyone's spiritual experiences because You know yourself."

I expect you to transform ideas unwittingly and make false claims, and I expect you to commit the kinds of logical fallacies and fantastic claims you have here. Little else matters in the context of RF posting. I also expect you to become agitated intermittently, but that's of little import to others.

Well, I guess if you're a critical thinker, then you'll be naming those logical fallacies and fantastic claims when they come up. You've already been proving to be unable to keep track of what you're saying. And I expect this is a patern for you, a very strong defense mechanism sheilding you from the truth. Whatever problems that happen in your life, in your profession, get warped so that the root cause is never never you.

 

[dybmh]

I don't believe it's possible to reason with someone who responds with snide and antagonistic remarks rather than with reasonable counterarguments. If a person behaves this poorly online, I shudder to think what kind of person they are in real life. They must be insufferable. I wouldn't want to know them.

The people who scream the loudest, are usually the most guilty. Again I refer you to the thread you posted about picking a fight with your so-called friend. As usual, its a double standard.

 

[dybmh]

Oh such big words, does that line of gibberish impress you? It might impress a four year old, but it remains to be an utterly meaningless load of gibberish just the same. Go ahead, explain it to me as if I am four years old, I would love to read that.

As if you're four? I can't, nor would I try. That's the point. Your assertion: "A four year old knows all about invisible Gods and it never gets any more complex than what a four year old understands."

You said: "It never gets any more complex than what a four year old understands." So I gave you an idea about god which far exceeds what a 4 year old understands. In other words, you have yet again shown how shallow and ignorant your atheism is.

If you want the 4 year old version: "Don't worry, God always takes good care. Don't give up. No struggle is in vain."

 

[lukethethird]

As if you're four? I can't, nor would I try. That's the point. Your assertion: "A four year old knows all about invisible Gods and it never gets any more complex than what a four year old understands."

You said: "It never gets any more complex than what a four year old understands." So I gave you an idea about god which far exceeds what a 4 year old understands. In other words, you have yet again shown how shallow and ignorant your atheism is.

If you want the 4 year old version: "Don't worry, God always takes good care. Don't give up. No struggle is in vain."

It's a line of incoherent gibberish and that is why you can't explain it.