Atheists here

[Crunchy Cat]

Seems so.

What does it mean and how / why is it a problem?

You're loony too. You obviously do not understand human nature as deeply as I, or Quantum Quack, who is similar in his ways.

How / why is it obvious?

Hah! Hard to give a rats ass when the ones who love you the most are fucking bastards. Are you saying that my "gift" cannot be changed, to something, some thing else? Deleted? I wouldn't call such a gift though....

Somewhere there might be a market for rats asses.

You couldn't do that. My favoriate diety is Quantum Quack. Dis prove him.... Good luck, too...

Quantum Quack is neither omniscient or omnipotent; hence, he doesn't qualify as a deity. Here is evidence:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69569

He stands disproven of being a deity.

 

[Tnerb]

What does it mean and how / why is it a problem?


Because CC, it is destroying my life.

How / why is it obvious?

How why is what obvious? That you don't obviously understand human nature as deeply as me? If you experienced a necessity to attempt to cry in order to have a return to feeling of a chair and emotion or feeling for things in an attempt to escape suicide, you may perhaps then understand. Until then, it is obvious that you do not understand human nature as deeply as I, ....

Somewhere there might be a market for rats asses.


So, I will forever be a rats ass. Such a nice remark Crunch the Great Cat.

Quantum Quack is neither omniscient or omnipotent; hence, he doesn't qualify as a deity. Here is evidence:

i disagree. I will view the thread, thanks.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69569

He stands disproven of being a deity.

And you stand proven of being a crunchy cat.

 

[(Q)]

So, (Q), what is the purely "scientific" explanation these understandable obvervations have concluded?

Depends. What exactly are you referring? If it's the start of the universe and it's development, that certainly appears like it occured on its own, with no indication there was a creator or intelligence at the helm.

Is the principle of origins in which you believe unanimous amongst all scientists/physicists?

Pretty much. Maybe a couple who don't.

Do you ever wonder why science has never produced a theory to satisfy all questions?

Of course. But, I understand that one theory to satisfy all questions isn't likely. That's the problem with theists who insist on easy absolute answers to hard questions, they turn to religion for that offering. They also expect science, which is still in it's infancy, to have answered all questions, and when they find it has not, they think it useless.

But, let's remember that lightning and thunder used to scare the pantaloons off people who thought the gods were angry. Once it was discovered that lightning and thunder was the discharging of electricity to the earth with the resulting noise, they were happy they no longer had to believe the mighty Thor was trying to stick a lightning bolt up their ass.

Give science some time and it will answer many questions.

All the theories have flaws that other scientists themselves discover and criticize.

Not quite. It is true that scientists are LOOKING for flaws in theories, as that is exactly what the scientific method is about. But, it certainly isn't true that ALL theories have flaws.

Even Newton's laws of gravity, although not as precise as General Relativity, are close enough to put a LEM on the moon or send a probe to Jupiter.

Theories are just ways of explaining how something works. Some theories work well enough to give you a computer and internet connection. That's something, isn't it?

 

[Kadark]

Depends. What exactly are you referring? If it's the start of the universe and it's development, that certainly appears like it occured on its own, with no indication there was a creator or intelligence at the helm.

You consider the universe coming into existence itself and developing by its own means is more logical and "scientific" than creationism?

Pretty much. Maybe a couple who don't.

Don't make me laugh. How many different theories are there for our universe's origins?

Of course. But, I understand that one theory to satisfy all questions isn't likely. That's the problem with theists who insist on easy absolute answers to hard questions, they turn to religion for that offering. They also expect science, which is still in it's infancy, to have answered all questions, and when they find it has not, they think it useless.

Why should anyone believe in a concept that is complex and confusing with no indication of self-identification over one that is simple, understandable and is based on observation? ~ (Q)

I thought creation was complex, and your theories were simple and understandable? Now it's creation that relies on easy answers to difficult questions posed by science? Which is it?

Give science some time and it will answer many questions.

Call me when there is one definitive answer all scientists agree on. Doesn't even have to be factual...just have everyone agree. All creationists believe God created the universe.

 

[Michael]

Hi existabrent,

Do you believe in the Japanese shape shifting God Tanuki (狸 : Nyctereutes procyonoides). Tanuki is a bit mischievous but is also very jolly. This God is a master of disguise and has shapeshifting ability. It's cute and somewhat gullible and absent-minded.

Thanks
Michael

 

[(Q)]

You consider the universe coming into existence itself and developing by its own means is more logical and "scientific" than creationism?

Of course, don't you?

Don't make me laugh. How many different theories are there for our universe's origins?

One. The Big Bang Theory.

Why should anyone believe in a concept that is complex and confusing with no indication of self-identification over one that is simple, understandable and is based on observation? ~ (Q)

I thought creation was complex, and your theories were simple and understandable? Now it's creation that relies on easy answers to difficult questions posed by science? Which is it?

The theories are simple and understandable, but are not 'easy answers.' You're confused with that term. It means one doesn't take the time or effort to think.

Call me when there is one definitive answer all scientists agree on. Doesn't even have to be factual...just have everyone agree. All creationists believe God created the universe.

So, you, and other creationists could care less about how things work, just as long as it has something to do with gods?

Which god do creationists refer from the many purported to exist? Is your god Allah? Thor? Zeus? Which one created the universe?

If you claim one of them created it, what about the other gods? And what about the other creationists who don't agree with you?

There are many unresolved questions with your beliefs. Can you answer them?

 

[Kadark]

One. The Big Bang Theory.

What about the Inflation Universe Theory? The M-Theory? How about the problems with the Big Bang theory that physicists still have yet to overcome?

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

The theories are simple and understandable, but are not 'easy answers.' You're confused with that term. It means one doesn't take the time or effort to think.

So what do you say to the people who take the time to learn about your multiple theories and finds them all unsatisfying? I can link to problems to every single scientific theory you post here. They all have problems.

So, you, and other creationists could care less about how things work, just as long as it has something to do with gods?

Why would you think this? I love learning about how things around us work, and I'm not as backward as some creationists you may have met. However, the origin of the universe, even amongst the most qualified and renowned scientists and physicists, is still unclear and disputed. There are several theories, and all have problems. That's a fact, man.

Which god do creationists refer from the many purported to exist? Is your god Allah? Thor? Zeus? Which one created the universe?

I already tackled this issue. What name you choose to call your God is irrelevant. All you need is the CONCEPT of a God which is the creator and is all-powerful, all-knowing.

If you claim one of them created it, what about the other gods? And what about the other creationists who don't agree with you?

It doesn't matter what GOD we believe in, because all the Gods share an identical concept: creator of the universe.

 

[ashura]

I already tackled this issue. What name you choose to call your God is irrelevant. All you need is the CONCEPT of a God which is the creator and is all-powerful, all-knowing.

You keep using the word need and I'm not sure where that's supposed to lead to. You need the concept of a god because...?

 

[Tnerb]

Hi existabrent,

Do you believe in the Japanese shape shifting God Tanuki (狸 : Nyctereutes procyonoides). Tanuki is a bit mischievous but is also very jolly. This God is a master of disguise and has shapeshifting ability. It's cute and somewhat gullible and absent-minded.

Thanks
Michael

Hi michael.

Ignorance is grand but what is the truth in that ???

I do not know of a japanese god.
I don't like mischievous and jolly things- rather that's just what I like. But the idea of it confuses the hell out of me. How exactly is there such a thing as a god that does this? I like the concept, and it sounds very cute and entertaining.

How does he exist?:bawl:

 

[Kadark]

You keep using the word need and I'm not sure where that's supposed to lead to. You need the concept of a god because...?

You need the concept of a creating God to be a creationist. What doesn't matter is what you decide to call your God.

 

[(Q)]

What about the Inflation Universe Theory? The M-Theory?

Inflationary theory is part of the Big Bang theory. M-Theory is strictly mathematical constructs with no evidence. The Big Bang theory has evidence.

How about the problems with the Big Bang theory that physicists still have yet to overcome?

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

Why are you citing crank websites? Did you even read that article? Did you find any explanations whatsoever backing up Van Flandern's assertions?

So what do you say to the people who take the time to learn about your multiple theories and finds them all unsatisfying? I can link to problems to every single scientific theory you post here. They all have problems.

By all means, go right ahead. Of course, you can't explain the problems associated with creationism. And please, stop linking to crank websites, your just wasting everyones time with that nonsense and it demonstrates you haven't done your homework.

Why would you think this? I love learning about how things around us work, and I'm not as backward as some creationists you may have met. However, the origin of the universe, even amongst the most qualified and renowned scientists and physicists, is still unclear and disputed. There are several theories, and all have problems. That's a fact, man.

No, it isn't a fact. You are citing kooks and cranks as your sources. Their so-called assumptions have been refuted.

I already tackled this issue. What name you choose to call your God is irrelevant. All you need is the CONCEPT of a God which is the creator and is all-powerful, all-knowing.

You see, I told you creationists can't answer questions. You're no different.

It doesn't matter what GOD we believe in, because all the Gods share an identical concept: creator of the universe.

Do you believe in Allah? Thor? Zeus? Which gods do you believe created the universe? Which gods don't you believe created the universe?

Answer the questions. They're not that hard, are they?

 

[Tnerb]

Kardak:

Hint: Try to keep the answers to Q's question summed up in fashion with the manner the thread is currently taking, ie. answer so that the questions have relevance to the actual truth presented thus far?

Sorry, had to say that

 

[Hapsburg]

because all the Gods share an identical concept: creator of the universe.

Tell that to Thor, a god of weather and agriculture.
Tell that to Poseidon, a god of horses and the sea.
Tell that to Ares, or Mars, or Tyr- all gods of war.

Not all gods that humans create are creator-gods. To assume such would be a major misstep in the observation of human society.

 

[Michael]

Hi michael.

Ignorance is grand but what is the truth in that ???

I do not know of a japanese god.
I don't like mischievous and jolly things- rather that's just what I like. But the idea of it confuses the hell out of me. How exactly is there such a thing as a god that does this? I like the concept, and it sounds very cute and entertaining.

How does he exist?:bawl:

I was thinking of your opening post: God must exist in at least form. [ I] Do not deny it. [A]thiests deny any of gods existance. You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all! Have you refuted Berkley? No? Then you should probably not profess god does not exist. Have you refuted God? No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

I suppose then using this logic that as the God Tanuki can not be refuted then we should also be a Tanuki believer. But we aren't - are we? We're Tanuki Atheists. Yet, how can this be???

 

[Tnerb]

I was thinking of your opening post: God must exist in at least form. [ I] Do not deny it. [A]thiests deny any of gods existance. You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all! Have you refuted Berkley? No? Then you should probably not profess god does not exist. Have you refuted God? No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

I suppose then using this logic that as the God Tanuki can not be refuted then we should also be a Tanuki believer. But we aren't - are we? We're Tanuki Atheists. Yet, how can this be???

I have no idea! What was the logic in my OP?

Yes, indeed how can this be? How can we not be a tanuki believer???

I think, it's too confusing a matter to consider. Maybe someone can retute this logic.

Maybe someone can retute it. If it hasn't already been done in this thread.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Because CC, it is destroying my life.

"words being reflected back into your eyes" are destroying your life and what exactly does "words being reflected back into your eyes" mean? How does that destroy a life?

How why is what obvious? That you don't obviously understand human nature as deeply as me? If you experienced a necessity to attempt to cry in order to have a return to feeling of a chair and emotion or feeling for things in an attempt to escape suicide, you may perhaps then understand. Until then, it is obvious that you do not understand human nature as deeply as I, ....

What you shown is that you're an expert on experiencing some kind of emotional issue. This does not however answer the original question. Maybe I can ask a different way. How does having that kind of emotional issue make your understanding of human nature superior to mine?

So, I will forever be a rats ass. Such a nice remark Crunch the Great Cat.

It's really interesting that you've done this time and time again in different threads. Someone types something and you incorrectly interpret the information as some kind of attack against you. Is that the real issue you are struggling with?

i disagree. I will view the thread, thanks.

It doesn't matter if you or I agree or disagree. What matters is if reality agrees and the evidence I provided shows reality does agree.

And you stand proven of being a crunchy cat.

An official SciForums candy bar of comfort:

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Category:Candy_bars_of_comfort

 

[Tnerb]

"words being reflected back into your eyes" are destroying your life and what exactly does "words being reflected back into your eyes" mean? How does that destroy a life?

Why do you want to know?

Some problem of mine. I don't know how to describe it at this moment. Some dysfunction I have with reading. It destroys mental health...

What you shown is that you're an expert on experiencing some kind of emotional issue. This does not however answer the original question. Maybe I can ask a different way. How does having that kind of emotional issue make your understanding of human nature superior to mine?

Sure. I understand the depths of human nature. I am only 21 years old and already it is obvious that in our conversations you are falling pretty far behind. And you are pretty *****ng annoying, you are not as nice as I am, you are not as loving as I, you do not naturally understand epistemology and all sorts of things. You may relate me to the user ozzie, who types all sorts of amazing things. Were I in the mood, I would type some amazing things. ... You do not understand. It is that simple. I am not fucking lying. You would have a very lame time trying to type out descriptions of nature.

Much less, you don't even seem to understand what it means to suffer. You're definately not as good as I as far as understanding certain things.

It's really interesting that you've done this time and time again in different threads. Someone types something and you incorrectly interpret the information as some kind of attack against you. Is that the real issue you are struggling with?

Perhaps.

It doesn't matter if you or I agree or disagree. What matters is if reality agrees and the evidence I provided shows reality does agree.

you showed some retarded lap top thing proving he is a human. That does not disprove him being considered a god.

An official SciForums candy bar of comfort:

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Category:Candy_bars_of_comfort

Great for you. I'm glad you are so satisfied.

 

[Michael]

I have no idea! What was the logic in my OP?

I was under the impression it was something along the lines of: A negative can not be proven ergo should be assumed the positive is true. IE: Because, God can not be disproved we should believe in God ...... Tanuki


Maybe I missed something?
Michael

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Some problem of mine. I don't know how to describe it at this moment. Some dysfunction I have with reading. It destroys mental health...

Do you think its genetic or learned?

Sure. I understand the depths of human nature.

Ok then you should know the answer to this question (it should be simple for anyone whom understands the depths of human nature). When presented with an eccentric group, how is that group judged and how does the judgment polarize with time?

I am only 21 years old and already it is obvious that in our conversations you are falling pretty far behind.

How am I falling behind and why does it matter that you're "only 21"?

you are not as nice as I am, you are not as loving as I,

How did you come to those conclusions? Do you have evidence?

you do not naturally understand epistemology and all sorts of things.

Why do you value epistemology and how is that relevant? What are those "all sorts of things?"

You may relate me to the user ozzie, who types all sorts of amazing things. Were I in the mood, I would type some amazing things.

What's more important to you. If something is amazing or if something is true?

... You do not
understand. It is that simple. I am not fucking lying. You would have a very lame time trying to type out descriptions of nature.

Please show me the evidence that I would have a very lame time trying to type out descriptions of nature.

Much less, you don't even seem to understand what it means to suffer. You're definately not as good as I as far as understanding certain things.

Why would it matter if I do or don't understand what it means to suffer?

Perhaps.

I can see how it could emotionally wear someone out if they always think they are being attacked due to information misintepretation.

you showed some retarded lap top thing proving he is a human. That does not disprove him being considered a god.

It doesn't disprove him being "considered" a 'God'. It does disprove him being a 'God'. A 'God' is all knowing and can do anything. If QQ is asking for help then he is not all knowing and cannot do anything.

Great for you. I'm glad you are so satisfied.

Low in calories too!

 

[Enmos]

I was under the impression it was something along the lines of: A negative can not be proven ergo should be assumed the positive is true. IE: Because, God can not be disproved we should believe in God ...... Tanuki


Maybe I missed something?
Michael

I believe you are. Where do you stand on FSM ?