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.
harry, if you don't know ... start there. But I would suggest when you clearly don't know, maybe not running the flappers so much until you do. then tell me you were wrong when done ... if you're man enough from behind the iron curtain that is.
The sickening bias against the existence of God in this forum is unconscionable. Almost as bad as the overweening arrogance, presumptuousness, and hubris of the anti-God posters.
Yes, reality is biased against BS. That is your problem, not ours.
That's the problem with getting personal on discussion forums. Discussion forums should be open to a wide array of voices with no one taking offense; instead one should be grateful to learn more about what's all out there. The need to side-up is anti-forum and anti-humanist.
What support do you have for your demand that the existence of God requires proof beyond what already exists??
Typical. You twist my statement into something else entirely.
I never said that the existence of god requires proof. It is conceivably possible that god exists and there is no proof at all. That would be weird, but possible.
What I actually said is that I require proof to believe. That is not a bias against the mere concept of god, as it is conceivable that a god may exist that provides proof of said existence.
Yes, you can now say that I am biased against hidden, non-evident gods that seem to have no influence on the universe that cannot be explainedin naturalistic ways. I will absolutely admit to that. If I cannot sense a god, nor reasonably infer the necessity of a god, and therefore cannot establish any characteristics of a god, my assumption is that a god does not exist. If a non-evident, unnecessary god of indeterminate but irrelevant characteristics actually does exist, so be it, but I would still be justified in my statement that I have no reason to believe in god.
Typical. You twist my statement into something else entirely.
I never said that the existence of god requires proof. It is conceivably possible that god exists and there is no proof at all. That would be weird, but possible.
What I actually said is that I require proof to believe. That is not a bias against the mere concept of god, as it is conceivable that a god may exist that provides proof of said existence.
Yes, you can now say that I am biased against hidden, non-evident gods that seem to have no influence on the universe that cannot be explainedin naturalistic ways. I will absolutely admit to that. If I cannot sense a god, nor reasonably infer the necessity of a god, and therefore cannot establish any characteristics of a god, my assumption is that a god does not exist. If a non-evident, unnecessary god of indeterminate but irrelevant characteristics actually does exist, so be it, but I would still be justified in my statement that I have no reason to believe in god.
Why isn't that understood? Why do you have to perpetually state that on a forum discussing religion and spirituality?
Why isn't that understood? Why do you have to perpetually state that on a forum discussing religion and spirituality?
Excellent question, and I wish I had an answer.
I am always shocked by theistic response to this mild statement. Take a look at mystic’s statements a few posts ago. My statement has resulted in accusations of hubris, arrogance, presumtousnrss, all of which he views as unconscionable and sickening. That is a really strong response to somebody saying that they don’t believe in something.
It seems to me that some of the theists get very upset at my lack of belief. I have no idea why.
To be clear, I am not saying that all theists react inappropriately. Casual Visitor started this thread by saying he only had an interest in talking about god/pizza, but he has never called anybody names or denigrated them for not believing. There can be respectful discussion concerning differences of opinion. I understand that CV believes on faith, and he has been clear that he cannot prove anything. I think that we both understand each other a bit better for our exchanges in this thread.
Mystic is another matter. My/atheists lack of belief seems to disturb him at a visceral level that causes him to lash out in inappropriate ways. It is unfortunate, and I do hope that he finds some peace and acceptance that people are not convinced by his thoughts.
Last edited by fishbrains; 03-14-2019 at 07:02 AM..
I am always shocked by theistic response to this mild statement. Take a look at mystic’s statements a few posts ago. My statement has resulted in accusations of hubris, arrogance, presumtousnrss, all of which he views as unconscionable and sickening. That is a really strong response to somebody saying that they don’t believe in something.
It seems to me that some of the theists get very upset at my lack of belief. I have no idea why.
IRL, it's a non-issue. That's why I wish we could get on with discovering/comparisons of world-religions and mythologies.
What support do you have for your demand that the existence of God requires proof beyond what already exists??
That what we know of that already exists supports no good evidence for anything that can merit the title "God". And what we don't know proves nothing, either way.
Mystic, you know what you have to do - convince us that Nature is intelligent and you have proved your case. Anything short of that and you are just fiddling with evidence and semantics to try to smuggle the God - label in without having to prove anything. Goldie's 'Pantheism' (his notorious cherry - picking of dictionary definitions) does the same.
We have had years of this from you. We know (or I do) exactly what's going on. You haven't a hope of getting away with this either by wangling, imperiousness or abuse.
Why do you give yourself and the rest of us a break. Why don't you and Gldnrule take your new disciple Arach to your Very Own Thread and instruct him in the doctrines of the Only True Church of the Cosmic Mind, Tea and buns Sunday morning?.
That what already exists supports no good evidence for anything that can merit the title "God".
Mystic, you know what you have to do - convince us that Nature is intelligent and you have proved your case. Anything short of that and you are just fiddling with evidence and semantics to try to smuggle the God -label in.
Ye have had years of this from you. We know (or I do) exactly what's going on. You haven't a hope of detting away with this either by wanglish, imperiousness or abuse.
Why do you give yourself and the rest of us a break. Why don't you and Gldnrule take your new disciple Arach to your Very Own Thread and instruct him in the dosctrines of the Only True Church of the Cosmic Mind, Tea and buns Sunday morning?.
Perhaps they will cease posting after you've provide a few rousing threads on the A/A forum.
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.
The sickening bias against the existence of God in this forum is unconscionable. 
Almost as bad as the overweening arrogance, presumptuousness, and hubris of the anti-God posters.
