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.
Much as it may distress you, that is something that cannot be dismissed because "We do not know." Your non-belief is a preference based on that ignorance.
Not as much as it distresses me to know there are ostensibly intelligent people that are willing to fill in the blanks with imagined facts just so they can satisfy their need not to say "I don't know" and divorce themselves from other believers that adhere to the teachings of 'primitive ignorant goat herders'.
Much as it may distress you, that is something that cannot be dismissed because "We do not know." Your non-belief is a preference based on that ignorance.
No that is just your mantra that you have been called out on numerous times - whereupon you run away - wait - then later trot it out again.
The non belief is based on a lack of any reasons to believe the claims. Nothing else. And there is no "preference" to ignorance there - just the reality of it. Neither the belief nor the ignorance are preferences. They are simply the realities of the situation where someone makes a claim - but fails to back up that claim in any way.
Much as it may distress you, that is something that cannot be dismissed because "We do not know." Your non-belief is a preference based on that ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Not as much as it distresses me to know there are ostensibly intelligent people that are willing to fill in the blanks with imagined facts just so they can satisfy their need not to say "I don't know" and divorce themselves from other believers that adhere to the teachings of 'primitive ignorant goat herders'.
The "imagined facts" you refer to are plausible scientific rationales . . . not facts . . . but a far cry from the "non-existent" or "baseless" or "no reason to believe" nonsense my critics keep claiming.
The "imagined facts" you refer to are plausible scientific rationales . . . not facts . . . but a far cry from the "non-existent" or "baseless" or "no reason to believe" nonsense my critics keep claiming.
Excuse me....no reason to believe is every bit and then some, a plausable scientific rational, not to mention, the most honest one.
I do think we have the edge on this one.
The "imagined facts" you refer to are plausible scientific rationales . . . not facts . . . but a far cry from the "non-existent" or "baseless" or "no reason to believe" nonsense my critics keep claiming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Excuse me....no reason to believe is every bit and then some, a plausable scientific rational, not to mention, the most honest one.
I do think we have the edge on this one.
If I asked you what possible BASIS (not evidence) would there be even to suggest that a Flying Spaghetti Monster could conceivably exist using extant scientific rationales you would have no answer. There are none. That is NOT true of my Synthesis and the plausible BASIS for my God . . . the "consciousness field" (unified field) that establishes our reality. IOW . . . there is a complex and detailed plausible scientific rationale for suggesting it. It is NOT "made up out of whole cloth" like the Spaghetti Monster. You may not like or agree with the inferences I draw from the existing science . . . but they ARE drawn from existing science . . . not my anal orifice! That is what my disingenuous critics repeatedly ignore with their calls for EVIDENCE for my conclusions. There is a BASIS for my conclusions . . . NOT evidence.
Bunch of dudes who thought the world was flat, didn't know what lightning was, couldn't explain why the sun rises in the East, sets in the west, didn't understand anything, write a book filled with error's, hypocrisy, racism, bigotry, slavery, murder, and several thousand years later, and people are still falling for it.
Having read the bible, it's absolutely comical. Funny, God carved the 12 commandments into stone, but couldn't write his own book. Furthermore, it's 3rd party narrative. Nothing suspicious there. Nope, lol. An entire religion based on a book, written by a bunch of people none of the followers ever met, where 75% (give or take) of the info is omitted. Mind boggling.
If I asked you what possible BASIS (not evidence) would there be even to suggest that a Flying Spaghetti Monster could conceivably exist using extant scientific rationales you would have no answer. There are none. That is NOT true of my Synthesis and the plausible BASIS for my God . . . the "consciousness field" (unified field) that establishes our reality. IOW . . . there is a complex and detailed plausible scientific rationale for suggesting it. It is NOT "made up out of whole cloth" like the Spaghetti Monster. You may not like or agree with the inferences I draw from the existing science . . . but they ARE drawn from existing science . . . not my anal orifice! That is what my disingenuous critics repeatedly ignore with their calls for EVIDENCE for my conclusions. There is a BASIS for my conclusions . . . NOT evidence.
From what I read, and I certainly don't have time to read your entire synthesis word for word, your rationale could just as easily be attributed to the FSM. Not being a philosophy major I can only understand your claims as being rational physiologically, but to extrapolate this to a supernatural being requires quite a jump.
If I asked you what possible BASIS (not evidence) would there be even to suggest that a Flying Spaghetti Monster could conceivably exist using extant scientific rationales you would have no answer. There are none. That is NOT true of my Synthesis and the plausible BASIS for my God . . . the "consciousness field" (unified field) that establishes our reality. IOW . . . there is a complex and detailed plausible scientific rationale for suggesting it. It is NOT "made up out of whole cloth" like the Spaghetti Monster. You may not like or agree with the inferences I draw from the existing science . . . but they ARE drawn from existing science . . . not my anal orifice! That is what my disingenuous critics repeatedly ignore with their calls for EVIDENCE for my conclusions. There is a BASIS for my conclusions . . . NOT evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
From what I read, and I certainly don't have time to read your entire synthesis word for word, your rationale could just as easily be attributed to the FSM. Not being a philosophy major I can only understand your claims as being rational physiologically, but to extrapolate this to a supernatural being requires quite a jump.
There is no such thing as a supernatural ANYTHING! God IS the very basis of our natural world . . . nothing supernatural at all. There is no existing science that could show spaghetti as capable of being a monster or any other living being! You guys simply refuse to objectively and sincerely evaluate things honestly. It is quite tiresome.
Did I mention the FSM as being plausible?
No. I offered 'not believing' in somebody else's imaginings as more plausible.
Didn't you do what's called 'straw horsing?"
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.
