U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:46 AM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
he used what knew. like neil and carl. More importantly he knew what he didnt know.


As to religion,

1) not the source of morality, not the source higher thought

2)"not the source" basis of civilization

3)"not the source for" that those who cannot accept the idea of removing its authority over society use as reasons to keep it, true or not.

4)Perhaps he would be stubborn and wrongheaded about that - just as he was about quantum.

this are true arg. If you would stick to these and be nice to the little stupid theist I would be with you.

eye-ny was a hinny. people get all wigged out that he can do math. "time" was the last thing that could be changed. The very last. He did think that the instruments were good enough for the first time. I am not even sure of that. And he was sitting at a desk trying to get out of that place. he had time on his side
I can be as nice as you wish, just as soon as we do not get religion mixed in with every damn' social dish. Just about the level of astrology or Dowsing. That'll do me. Hospitals do not have people coming in casting horoscopes and saying an operation must be deferred util an auspicious conjunction. So I don't want religion in hospitals either because it has no more credibility.

I cannot understand why not wanting dowsers coming in and waving sticks or crystals over patients isn't regarded as strident or intolerant, but opposing religion being stuffed down our throats is. Actually I do - one is not a problem so we don't need to complain. the other is. Those who -I don't know, want a quiet life, hate anyone who is too 'sure of themselves'? - and complain about us trying to end this clearly have spent more time moaning about us goddless than thinking outside the box.

I see a too cozy and rather reprehensible drifting along with what is wrong. That's their choice to be lazy. But having a go at those who are not is reprehensible and - as I suggested, doing unintential dirty work for those who want to push religion in law, politics, education and in the end, science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:53 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
I was. Your failure to parse something is not indicative of a lack of clarity on what you failed to parse. The problem lay with you.



I would if given any cause to do so. I have not so thus far I have not. But "thus far" is not the same as "will not". Again a parse failure on your side.

I would "predict" a god if the data set gave me any cause to do so. Currently it does not.

yep, its me I am ok with that. Back to the facts. you found I had no error. That's a start. now for the next part. if I had a treat I'd give ya one.

your conclusion is based on a personal belief.

There is no rational reason to submit to the claim there has to be "no nothing" or "Omni-god" as the only two choices. That "no nothing" more complex has no observational base. Nor does Omni thing have any observable base. But there is only one correct answer to the claim that Humans are part of a more complex system that we don't understand fully yet. There Real data to the claim "living" ya know.

That "I don't know what it is" is an acceptable answer based on what we know we don't know. And that we don't have to offer a "grand purpose" based on the lack of information. Even when people try to bully us. That there "Must be no-nothing because "I" can't fully describe it" is not only a fallacy but wrong.

'religious people forcing a belief on us is a different issue. You can't separate them can you?
again, feel free to point to an error. or even what is so stupid about this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 10:09 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I can be as nice as you wish, just as soon as we do not get religion mixed in with every damn' social dish. Just about the level of astrology or Dowsing. That'll do me. Hospitals do not have people coming in casting horoscopes and saying an operation must be deferred util an auspicious conjunction. So I don't want religion in hospitals either because it has no more credibility.

I cannot understand why not wanting dowsers coming in and waving sticks or crystals over patients isn't regarded as strident or intolerant, but opposing religion being stuffed down our throats is. Actually I do - one is not a problem so we don't need to complain. the other is. Those who -I don't know, want a quiet life, hate anyone who is too 'sure of themselves'? - and complain about us trying to end this clearly have spent more time moaning about us goddless than thinking outside the box.

I see a too cozy and rather reprehensible drifting along with what is wrong. That's their choice to be lazy. But having a go at those who are not is reprehensible and - as I suggested, doing unintential dirty work for those who want to push religion in law, politics, education and in the end, science.
lmao drifting. thats funny. I fought the system. I got squished. I didn't fight religion because religion is small and can't hurt anybody, well more than anything else does that is. cars hurt people and are real. alcohol not even close to religion and alcohol is real. 17 trillion dollar debt ... that's real.

i do religion because its virtual reality and easier than the real stuff these days.

being as nice as you. You don't get that I only deal in facts. nothing but a claim and how it is supported. thats it. You are not doing dirty work, you are dirty. Your cannon fodder girl. I could send you to your own state or country as easily as I can the pastor/people that screwed mort up.

now that is over; your facts in the post were valid. How I "feel" about you or them is unimportant.

lmao drifting. thats still funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 10:39 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You posted "what some of us are basing our claims on." so you tell me what those claims are. Don't ask me.

And personality types? Who the heck is fighting them? All I am fighting is claims made as logical and evidentially valid when they are neither (as an academic mater) and authority over all of us being pursued on the basis of those unlogical and invalid (evidentially) claims, on the basis of faith, tradition or civilization would collapse without it.

A point can be stretched of course, but my beef with religion is that in the past it has not done much stretching on the points, more usually on the rack.

err, i said we should be fighting personality types not religions or athiesm.

this is the claim that started this mess. in post 386.

"religions are supposed to be "real and true"? .
instead of you just dismissing it as an overzealous comment you choose to defend it.

then in post 389 spewed some other gibberish.

then 393, I just pointed out how your stance is a feeling. In a vain attempt to show you we all do that not just hated stupid theists.

then in 402 you went off onto something else.

and here we are. you spouting about "claims made as logical and evidentially valid when they are neither" again.

my claim:

that last line of yours is indepandent of belief. That religous people need to police their own.

people spout not religions. People sit on the sides. the louder they spout indicates a personality type. some are just intense and can be talked to and other are mentally ill. Some, like myself, will get caught up in the moment and settle will down later.

That these types of people are trouble. independent of what they believe. we don't have to listen to these people but that it can get nasty in stopping them. It's not religion its people.

your claim

A point can be stretched of course, but my beef with religion is that in the past it has not done much stretching on the points, more usually on the rack

I agree ..you stretch atheism beyond all reasonable requisition just like the fundie does the bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 12:22 PM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,288,132 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
yep, its me I am ok with that.
I think so, but as I said it appears not to be just you, but the result of how I use language and how you parse it. No one else appears to have trouble with my words like you do. And you do not seem to have much trouble with many of the words of others. So it appears to be some combination of the two.

But as I say, given only one person has an issue out of 100s, I can hardly modify anything or I might fix it for 1 and yet break it for 100 others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
if I had a treat I'd give ya one.
I think we can move forward without your childish baiting and patronising, dont you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
your conclusion is based on a personal belief.
No it is a statement of fact. The fact is that if someone claims there is a god, there either is or there is not. There is no middle ground there. Buy by all means regail us about how something can exist and not exist. Or again, feel free to point to an error. or even what is so stupid about this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
'religious people forcing a belief on us is a different issue. You can't separate them can you?
That is not an issue that has anything to do with the point I made. So my inability to separate them is something you just made up. You are now commenting on things I never said in place of replying to what I did say. Again, feel free to point to an error. or even what is so stupid about this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2015, 04:26 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
No it is a statement of fact. The fact is that if someone claims there is a god, there either is or there is not. There is no middle ground there. Buy by all means regail us about how something can exist and not exist. Or again, feel free to point to an error. or even what is so stupid about this?
I first few parts of your post were just inteleclually imature. Restating what I claimed or just flat out making stuff up so I am moving on.

Your fallacy lies with what you call god. I dont know what traits it has if it should exists. The way I see it revelaing itself indirectly is with "complexity". Life seems to arise when complexety increases and volume descreases. Its loose but its valid.

And you are distorting how we can make choices. But that's normal for you. It's an agenda thing. Figures don't lie liars figure. Forcing a choice of either "no-nothing" or "Omni something." only as answers is dishonest. On many levels it is flat out wrong. skewing it to fit a personal agenda. personal feeling, or otherwise.

Moderator cut: deleted

Which is the more reasonable stance. The universe is more complex than we know or the universe is not more complex than we know. leave out anything about religion, I don't believe in their god. I DON"T CARE HOW YOU FEEL. then we can precede to compare that perfered stance to what we do know using Uniformitarianism ideas.

Last edited by june 7th; 03-28-2015 at 05:29 PM.. Reason: Innappropriate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2015, 04:31 PM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,288,132 times
Reputation: 2973
I first few parts? Why do your posts never make linguistic sense?

You are moving on from flat out making stuff up? Thats good!

My fallacy about what I call god exists in your own head because I explained in my posts, which you conveniently do not quote, I dismiss my own definition of god the moment I enter into discourse with a believer in god.

As with other theists however you seem to link complexity with god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2015, 04:50 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
lmao, you are so emotionally attached. You vision is all distorted. Yeah I know, its me.

back to the point. let me repeat the question for ya.

Which is the more reasonable stance. The universe is more complex than we know or the universe is not more complex than we know. leave out anything about religion, I don't believe in their god. I DON"T CARE HOW YOU FEEL. then we can precede to compare that preferred stance to what we do know using Uniformitarian's ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2015, 05:39 PM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,288,132 times
Reputation: 2973
Very little of your last post connects to anything I said or any point I have made. You just seem to want to make it more and more personal with baiting comments about emotions while asking questions that have nothing to do with the original point you latched on to.

Again: There is no middle ground on the existence of god. It either exists or it does not. There is no utility in seeking a middle ground there. We should seek the truth of it. And currently our data set is 0% in favour of thinking there is a god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2015, 06:28 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,017,451 times
Reputation: 1368
wow. more Moderator cut: unnecessary personal attacks removed . I can't speller in but your dishonest. I did answer you directly. But your stance is based off of a feeling and not objective search for the truth so you didnt pick it up..

here is what I posted:
"Your fallacy lies with what you call god. I don't know what traits it has if it should exists. The way I see it revealing itself indirectly is through "complexity". Life seems to arise when complexity increases and volume decreases. Its loose but its valid."

Your definition of god is wrong. so everything you base off of that incorrect decryption is wrong. It is a personal need that you are filling. And your stance is based in "a feeling". so your statements that you see no substantial evidence of god is a fallacy. Your analysis of the data is wrong.

Then I pointed to forcing an answer of "yes, omni god" or "no nothing" as the only two choices is not really fair based on what we don't know. I claim "for you to do that to a layman is dishonest. and misleading"

Now let's get back to what we do know.

Which is the more reasonable stance. The universe is more complex than we know or the universe is not more complex than we know. leave out anything about religion, I don't believe in their god. I DON"T CARE HOW YOU FEEL. then we can precede to compare that preferred stance to what we do know using Uniformitarian's ideas.

Last edited by mensaguy; 03-29-2015 at 05:29 AM.. Reason: Really? You thought "intellectual immaturity" and "blatant dishonesty" were OK?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top