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.
Ha! And never mind the footling and irrelevant responses above . Again it's trying make the questioners define the god. Let the god -claimant define what they mean and then try to prove it. It's not the job of others to define 'their "god" for them, nor to provide the evidence..
And when it starts to look like it has proof, or more imporatantly, when comparing to your "lack belief" starts to make "lack belief" look foolish ... get it stopped.
Most rational people understand "what type?" as a reasonable response.
actually not nonsense at all. If we sat and laid out what we are both saying ... with all the avaibale data that is.
And claiming "false" is just a bold face lie at point. You know full well you have to limit us to "deity only" and avoid any beliefs that have merit. In a general forum none the less.
Maybe start a forum for "only to discuss non existent deities".
Just to show I am not lying ... and that it is actually you ... let me remind us of a post ...
"If you are not talking a god here (it's alive but not with a planning, intelligent, will) you are off topic. Remember the only reason for atheists to be here is in refuting the claim of a theism or religion or at least a spirituality. We are not here to put forward speculative non -theist alternatives. Take them to the science forum and argue them there. I'm not going to keep on explaining this."
And if I misrepresenting or quote mining, please feel free to clarify it for me. I want to make sure we get it right.
We can address how a person with that as the basis for their discussions in this forum can skew or cloud "the truth"..
More spam, irrelevance, nonsense, off-topic and false accusations. It's a disgrace that you're getting away with it.
Stop pretending atheism is the victim here just because their deceitful, disingenuous, and unethical tactics employed are being exposed as often as you try to lie about my views, Arq. You have succeeded in protecting your deceit by fostering censorship and diligent policing so stop complaining.
Stop pretending atheism is the victim here just because their deceitful, disingenuous, and unethical tactics employed are being exposed as often as you try to lie about my views, Arq. You have succeeded in protecting your deceit by fostering censorship and diligent policing so stop complaining.
He did nothing of the sort, and you've been told so numerous times.
He did nothing of the sort, and you've been told so numerous times.
We are not supposed to discuss moderation of the forum. But are you seriously suggesting that complaints from posters, like Arq, which are repeatedly made public in an attempt to provoke moderator action had no impact on the creation of forum "rules?" They usually result in derails and hijacks that produce responses like this which are then treated as off-topic.
You can't possibly mean forum rules are just moderators' personal rules, right???
We are not supposed to discuss moderation of the forum. But are you seriously suggesting that complaints from posters, like Arq, which are repeatedly made public in an attempt to provoke moderator action had no impact on the creation of forum "rules?" They usually result in derails and hijacks that produce responses like this which are then treated as off-topic.
You can't possibly mean forum rules are just moderators' personal rules, right???
I've said many times that I created that rule. You can read in the rules why and note the date of the post on the rule. Look for threads ending around that date. After you guys (actually three of you, not counting Transponder) caused two specific thread to go so far off course that I had to close them while I spent hours cleaning them up. It's my rule, with good reason, and with the prior knowledge of the Senior Moderators.
We are not supposed to discuss moderation of the forum. But are you seriously suggesting that complaints from posters, like Arq, which are repeatedly made public in an attempt to provoke moderator action had no impact on the creation of forum "rules?" They usually result in derails and hijacks that produce responses like this which are then treated as off-topic.
You can't possibly mean forum rules are just moderators' personal rules, right???
That's because some insist one domain is applicable to or negates the other, and that's a two-way street. There's dogma on both sides. Let me be more clear: Science deals with the material and spirituality deals with the immaterial.
"If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described."
Don't get me wrong...
I can just as easily recite all the ways that religion and science compliment one another as I can argue how the two are not reconcilable. We all know how this works and how it all depends on who you're talking to. Always there are those who will insist on one thing or another and of course there is plenty of dogma to go around from all directions. These sort of simple truths are somewhat obvious, prevalent and persistent.
It is also quite true that where science and religion either meet or part company depends a lot on the goal or what it is that one wants to "ascertain." Those differences are also worth considering with respect to how the two are similar and/or different.
So where does this leave us? Just because any point of view can be argued they are all equally valid? I don't think so, and again I'd refer you to the book I recommended for more specifics, clarity and focus regarding the point of view I happen to hold. The book explains much that I feel gives my point of view enough validity to at least consider seriously.
I won't argue, however, that "some" folks see things quite differently. That's another given that is never lost on me. Still, there is what makes more sense and what makes less sense all considered, and it's about those specifics or particulars we might better define what beliefs and opinions are more or less justified than others. More or less worthy to get behind...
I've said many times that I created that rule. You can read in the rules why and note the date of the post on the rule. Look for threads ending around that date. After you guys (actually three of you, not counting Transponder) caused two specific thread to go so far off course that I had to close them while I spent hours cleaning them up. It's my rule, with good reason, and with the prior knowledge of the Senior Moderators.
Seems some of my comments have been deleted, and I don't know why in part because I can't remember what they were...
Sometimes I've thought there ought to be a deleted comment dumping thread where all deleted comments can be found, so we can read them again and perhaps better understand why they were deleted. Seems I must have crossed into the forbidden realm of pantheism or something like that...
Also curious who the "three of you" might be other than Mystic. Was I one of them?
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.
And never mind the footling and irrelevant responses above 
. Again it's trying make the questioners define the god. Let the god -claimant define what they mean and then try to prove it. It's not the job of others to define 'their "god" for them, nor to provide the evidence..
