Your religion is full of lies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
(04-01-2015 11:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... why is it necessary to check every last place in an incomprehensibly large universe to disprove the existence of something that's supposed to be omnipresent?

Is the microscopic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

Is the subatomic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

How many more such omnipresent realms remain to be discovered by science? None? One? A million?

Nobody has a clue, and the history of science likely has thousands of years to go yet.

Your certainty, near certainty, almost certainty, kinda certainty, or whatever you will call it is based on fantasy knowings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
(04-01-2015 01:57 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 11:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... why is it necessary to check every last place in an incomprehensibly large universe to disprove the existence of something that's supposed to be omnipresent?

Is the microscopic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

Is the subatomic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

How many more such omnipresent realms remain to be discovered by science? None? One? A million?

Nobody has a clue, and the history of science likely has thousands of years to go yet.

Your certainty, near certainty, almost certainty, kinda certainty, or whatever you will call it is based on fantasy knowings.

Is your god omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Two thousand years ago?

How many more omnipresent god realms remain to be discovered. None? One? A million?

Nobody has a clue, and the history of theism beliefs likely has thousands of years to go yet. (unfortunately)

Your certainty, or whatever you call it, is based on fantasy knowings.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 03:40 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
[Image: f36192a37919886f48046db84df934c3df744c08...9dbaf6.jpg]

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
04-01-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
(04-01-2015 11:40 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  With so many lies, it truly is a miracle that anyone believes at all.

[Image: 3031297-3817814948-i-see.jpg]

Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 04:13 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
(04-01-2015 03:40 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  [Image: f36192a37919886f48046db84df934c3df744c08...9dbaf6.jpg]

The amazing thing is that the age of consent was around 12 years old during Biblical times and that's when most girls got married.

So let's say it took god a couple of years to get her pregnant, like he couldn't get it up for some reason (I donno, he was tired from all the killing. murder and baby bashing and he had ED) then this would make Mary around 14 years old. cough,pediphile,cough

Theists never think about the reality of those ancient times. Not that god is real, but you know what I mean.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
(04-01-2015 01:57 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 11:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... why is it necessary to check every last place in an incomprehensibly large universe to disprove the existence of something that's supposed to be omnipresent?

Is the microscopic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

Is the subatomic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

How many more such omnipresent realms remain to be discovered by science? None? One? A million?

Nobody has a clue, and the history of science likely has thousands of years to go yet.

Your certainty, near certainty, almost certainty, kinda certainty, or whatever you will call it is based on fantasy knowings.


And did any of these discoveries revels your Jebus lurking anywhere in their designed flagella ?

Not a chance, so your point is moooooooooot, and pointless, oh embittered one. (Yeah I saw the crap you wrote in the contemplator's intro thread. Poor baby.)

Buck up. Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 05:09 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
(04-01-2015 01:57 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(04-01-2015 11:21 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... why is it necessary to check every last place in an incomprehensibly large universe to disprove the existence of something that's supposed to be omnipresent?

Is the microscopic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

Is the subatomic realm omnipresent? And when was it's existence proven? Only recently.

How many more such omnipresent realms remain to be discovered by science? None? One? A million?

Nobody has a clue, and the history of science likely has thousands of years to go yet.

Your certainty, near certainty, almost certainty, kinda certainty, or whatever you will call it is based on fantasy knowings.

"Microscopic" -- by definition, a scale smaller than the human eye is capable of perceiving unaided. While the aids to perceive it were only invented (or, rather, refined to the point of usefulness) about half a millennia ago, the awareness that there was such a scale to be explored has been with us much longer.

Similarly for subatomic scales, though the necessary refinements only took place within the past century. There was also a (totally unfounded) assertion that atomic particles could not be split (hence the name) that delayed this investigation; while widely believed, this was both false and unscientific.

Indeed, that both of these scales (not realms) could exist was quite easily deducible from basic Euclidean geometry, which was the default model of the spacial dimensions until the last century. (It now looks like space is quantum, rather than Euclidean, which would suggest that there is indeed a smallest scale. However, our instruments are several orders of magnitude too imprecise to confirm this, and it remains an untested hypothesis until technology advances further.) Prior to that, there was never any real doubt that microscopic and even nanoscopic scales existed. There was just no knowledge of what they contained, no method for examining them, and sometimes no interest in exploring them.

In both of these cases, we did not need to examine every inch of the vast cosmos. We needed only examine ANY inch of the vast cosmos. If space was quantum on a larger scale -- that is, if nanoscopic or microscopic scales did not exist -- then we could have quite confidently arrived at this conclusion, given proper instruments, with only the examination of a few points on this planet, and with the entirety of the universe unexamined.

Since you finally deigned (after a very insulting, uneducated, and thoroughly false assertion) to ask about admit to the slightest measure of uncertainty about my position, I am primarily an ignostic, and within that ignosticism I lean strongly towards agnostic atheism. I typically identify as an atheist, as it avoids a half hour discussion about what the term means, and as it gives a reasonably accurate understanding of my position on the conventional god claims, as well as my group affiliations, in under a second. Rather than dwell on definitions, I'll summarize my ignostic-agnostic-atheist position as follows.

"I don't really know what people are claiming when they say a god exists. They seem to be talking about different things. Their definitions vary, and though there are a few common themes, the word doesn't seem to be strongly defined. They disagree on many of the qualities of this god-thing, and if a random person used the word 'god' to me, I wouldn't know which of the many different notions of a god I have encountered they were referring to... assuming they weren't referring to yet another new one. I simply don't know what's being claimed here, and I am starting to suspect that most of the claimants don't know either." That's the ignostic element of my position.

"To the extent that I do have any understanding of what's being claimed -- that I can discern common themes or elements in most of what people are claiming, or when someone is capable of providing a clear definition of what they themselves are arguing for (even if it's not what others seem to be arguing for) when they argue for god, I by and large do not believe it is true. This isn't to say that I believe it is false (though, depending on definition, I might do that as well... a lot of these people are arguing for things that are self-contradictory). It is to say that I am unconvinced, and shall remain unconvinced in the absence of a good argument or good evidence. There are a few facile definitions that I do believe in -- eg, "God is love", and I believe love does exist -- but by and large these are so at ends with the conventional themes that people use when they refer to a god, that I would not use the word god to describe them, as to do so would only spark more confusion. But by and large, no strong cause for believing has been shown to me, nor have I discerned it in my examination of the subject. I therefore have not been moved into a position of belief. I remain unconvinced and doubtful." That is my atheistic position. Note that not a word has been said about confidence. This is a statement about whether I believe something or do not believe it... it isn't even a claim about whether I believe its opposite or not. THAT is atheism: simply saying that you do not believe.

"I cannot say with complete, absolute confidence that these claims are false. I am more inclined to regard them as false than true, if for no other reason than the wide degree of contradiction amongst these varied claims logically necessitates that most versions of them are false, and further implies that most or all of the people advancing these claims have either a flawed perception of the truth, or a totally false view. However, I cannot with total confidence assert that every last variation, including those I have yet to encounter, of this god-claim is false." This is the agnostic position. Note that this is a statement about confidence, and I am stating that I fall short of complete confidence. It's not about WHAT I do or don't believe -- that's atheism -- but about how strongly and confidently I do or don't believe it. The contrary position -- that one has 100% certainty in something -- is usually called gnosticism. I dislike the term because it overlaps terminology with a branch of Christianity, but I don't know of a better word for it, so I'm stuck with it. Note also that the terms can be applied to other positions besides atheism. You can have an agnostic theist (one who believes in a theistic god but isn't confident), a gnostic theist (one who believes with complete confidence), an agnostic deist, a gnostic deist, and so on.

So really, here's what you're doing.

1) You're arguing against gnosticism and for agnosticism, on the basis that evidence is incomplete.
2) You're then confusing terms and claiming that you're arguing against atheism.
3) You are not actually asking us what positions we hold, which would have prevented you from making your mistake in #2. Instead, you boldly assert falsehoods about our position, which in front of an audience of theists might have resulted in a serious mischief of deceiving them about what our position actually is, but in front of an audience of atheists just made yourself look like an idiot.
4) You went on to, in effect, call us idiots.

Honestly, I don't blame you for this. This is a common, even formulaic, tactic put forward by Christian apologists like Ray Comfort. People underestimate Comfort. I think he's smarter than people make him out to be, but only because people assume he's honest when he says he's engaging atheists in a logical discussion about it. I think he isn't. I regard his arguments as being addressed primarily towards a Christian audience, in an attempt to forestall doubts through misrepresentation and other dishonest tactics. This is hardly unique to Comfort -- indeed, most apologists do this. I simply bring him up as a particularly egregious example. The problem is that the people they trick this way then go on repeating the bullshit elsewhere, even in front of people that the original apologist is to smart to mistake for a mark. I suspect that you fell for something like this hook, line, and sinker. That doesn't make you a perpetrator. It makes you a victim.

Having said all that, I do have a certain degree of confidence in my atheistic position, which I will now expand upon.

"While I can't disprove these claims, I see little no good reason to believe them. My conversations with believers, along with the publications of prominent believers, shows their reasons for believing are generally poor. (I have not, of course, asked every last one of them, so I can't make this a universal statement. But a fair-sized sampling has yet to turn up a single good reason for believing.) Therefore, I shall file this claim with other claims that I suspect are false, have no good reason to believe are true, have some people who DO believe they are true, but don't seem to have good reasons for doing so. Things like leprechauns, faeries, and rectally-probing alien abductors. If good evidence for any of these things is ever presented, I will modify my views, but for now, I have no cause to do so."

Putting this in the same category as leprechauns is significant as more than a slight against the theistic position. It is because I am holding these beliefs to the same standard. I shall do so again with your argument.

Suppose that you do not believe leprechauns exist, are reasonably confident that they do not exist, are willing to modify your stance in light of strong evidence, but otherwise go about your life much as if they do not exist. Someone points out to you that, wait! Your religion of no-leprechaun-ism is insisting that you know that leprechauns exist in an incomprehensibly huge arena that you cannot define! WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE! They take you to task for not believing in the face of a lack of a complete, universal search for leprechauns. Buried in the fine print of what they want you to believe is a rule that you have to give 10% if your gross income to the people who organize and run leprechaun belief, and also a whole bunch of frankly kooky, inconvenient, and in some cases unethical rules about how to live your life.

If you'd give this person anything other than a raspberry, the finger, or a dressing down like I've just given you, then I have to ask why don't you believe in leprechauns. And if you WOULDN'T respond positively, then I have to ask, why the double standard? Why should you give the possibility of leprechauns any less credit than the possibility of a god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
04-01-2015, 05:45 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
Why does it look like Bozo is a contributor now?

Is he trying to buy our love?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
(04-01-2015 05:45 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Why does it look like Bozo is a contributor now?

Is he trying to buy our love?

Depending on how much is on offer... I might be buy-able... Blush

Much cheers to all
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 03:14 AM
RE: Your religion is full of lies
Just in case Girly is asleep, I'll add his favourite:

The Concept of a Postmortem Preservation of Identity.

Prove it or GTFO.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: