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.
Why can you not understand that the validated material reality (which is all that we know) IS the default, and if you want to show there is something other than unvalidated claims about it, YOU have to demonstrate it. Why is this so hard for you?
::Sigh:: I do NOT want to show there is something OTHER than unvalidated claims about it just that your IMPLICIT claim that it is NOT God so God must be proven is not valid.
My point was to simply call it what it is (anti-theism) rather than this pretense ‘we are spreading logic’. We all know logic is on our side - and to constantly come to a boxing match with a knife is stupidity in itself. Sure, logic tells you the knife will win - except you won’t be admitted into the ring at all (and thus lose the fight anyway).
Oh, I don't know. The various civil rights organizations didn't just speak quietly. They protested, even rioted, until change took place. And thank goodness they did.
::Sigh:: I do NOT want to show there is something OTHER than unvalidated claims about it just that your IMPLICIT claim that it is NOT God so God must be proven is not valid.
We have done this over and over. Tell me one thing - if nature, physics and the Universal field is not intelligent, do you still say it is "God"? And assuming that you stick to your 'reason we are here' characteristic, is there any reason, other than semantic juggling, that we can't just call it 'nature?'
I am beginning to think you a bit obsessed. I told you that I checked your posts and established that you were (recently) an atheist. Ok. Let me concede you the win. I am all about my Ego. I give in, I am not part of the atheist campaign. I will be silent.
So - do you think that is going to make the slightest difference to the 'New' atheist campaign? It is not just about me. Discrediting me will make not the slightest difference.
I would have to be extraordinarily obtuse not see how Theists (here) would be gleeful about atheists falling out. But then I could fart and you'd tick that off on your check list "Yep, sure sign of an atheist fundament."
dude, i have claimed from day one you answer to a statement of belief about god. I claimed from day two that you answer to "how theist react first". You are defined by others.
I don't. I make no claims based on a statement of belief about gos. Nor do I changed science based on how theist react.
You do ... your theist in the head. thats all.
i don't dislike you trans. i dislike you thinking we need to answer to anti-religious dogma first. That just seems so religous to me.
::Sigh:: I do NOT want to show there is something OTHER than unvalidated claims about it just that your IMPLICIT claim that it is NOT God so God must be proven is not valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
We have done this over and over. Tell me one thing - if nature, physics and the Universal field is not intelligent, do you still say it is "God"? And assuming that you stick to your 'reason we are here' characteristic, is there any reason, other than semantic juggling, that we can't just call it 'nature?'
What IS nature? If it has the minimum attributes of God, what's in a name, it is still God and is responsible for the existence of everything including our intelligence.
Oh, I don't know. The various civil rights organizations didn't just speak quietly. They protested, even rioted, until change took place. And thank goodness they did.
we are not saying its totally bad.
we are saying that answering to a statement of belief about god doesn't make us atheist.
we are saying that basing choices without every saying "no god" or "those pesky theist" is more valid.
I can certainly recall from the start how you interpreted anything an atheist said (or posted) as a Sign of Dogmatic atheist Fundamentalism, and if there wasn't anything, you'd make something up.
You atheist anti -atheists are known pretty much. Prof Stavrakopoulou because the Bible is her life's work and she sees us as 'attacking' it. You because you hate liberals. CC because (or so I reckon) because he wants to keep options open on God and sees us trying to close them. Goldie because he's just an asshhole.
We have done this over and over. Tell me one thing - if nature, physics and the Universal field is not intelligent, do you still say it is "God"? And assuming that you stick to your 'reason we are here' characteristic, is there any reason, other than semantic juggling, that we can't just call it 'nature?'
oh my no god, your freaking out over three letters.
claiming the universe may be "life" is more valid than claiming it is "non life". just because you are so afraid of three letters isn't our problem.
we don't answer to a statement of belief about god like you do.
I can certainly recall from the start how you interpreted anything an atheist said (or posted) as a Sign of Dogmatic atheist Fundamentalism, and if there wasn't anything, you'd make something up.
lmao ... no trans thats not how it went.
I used your words and only your words.
lay that "some of us feel religion is so dangerous" speech on me again. You know, when I told you that all I claim is we are surrounded by life and thats what theist are reacting to. And you told me "yeah but ..." insert speech.
go ahead dude ... floor is yours.
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.
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.
