Atheists please answer this

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Are you saying that the theory of Evolution is nonsensical and that psychology does not support what I just claimed?

I don't think the idea of the theory is nonsense, although some folks will use it nonsensically to back up their ideas. You being a prime example.

If you have psychology sources to back up your concept, be my guest.

Are you suggesting that human intelligence shaped evolution... PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANS?
Speaking of something being nonsensical.

Are you suggesting that evolution is intelligent?

You didn't understand what I said, did you?
Heck, you pretty much agreed with me and seem totally unaware that you did.

I didn't agree with you. You stated we CANNOT directly observe reality.
If you actually knew this was true then your statement would be a contradiction. Do you get it?

I said; The conclusion drawn from it is reality as far as it is understood to be, not reality period.

Another way to look at it is to understand that reality is everything, we only need understand it.
Not that reality is over there while we're over here.

What makes the brain laugh at absurdity or why the brain responds to our perception of beauty CAN be described, measured and studied scientifically.

You didn't understand my point. Did you?

Currently, we lack the technology to study it in great detail. But the principle is sound.

LOL!!

The supernatural, on the other hand, is utterly absent from ANY method of study. ANY.

Of course it would because there is no way to access it by scientific method.
Are you always this silly, or are you putting on a special show for me.
Do you know what supernatural means?
Are you aware that there are millions of claims of what is considered supernatural events throughout all known time (including now)?
Are you going to tell me that they were and are all deluded?

Clearly, you do not understand evolution.
Read here:http://www.talkorigins.org/
Learn it- THEN try making claims.

You're a cheeky monkey, aren't you (pun intended)
Are you suggesting that evolution demonstrates a lack of God?
Proof?

You essentially just said something as absurd as: "Mathematics does not demonstrate that pi is an irrational number. Pi is a testament to the beauty of whole numbers."

No, I'm suggesting evolution does not demonstrate a lack of God, unless
one wants it to.

You just admitted that you lack understanding.

Yes.

Having spent five years In The Ministry- it's a safe bet I understand scripture better than you do.

Why would you risk the chance of losing your money on such idiotic reasoning?

So how is it you claim that with your lack of understanding, you've determined that I understand Zilch?

Because that is what you have thus far revealed.
The fact that you think spending 5 years in a ministry means you develop understanding of God, secures my claim.

No. It's embarrassingly clear that you're just rationalizing your belief. Deal with it instead of making biased assumptions about my knowledge base.

Another reason why I know you understand zilch is that you see no value
someone admiting they know very little about a subject matter.
Also, you have no idea how great God (or even the concept) actually is.

When the hand of God is not found and the believer then asks, "Well, then how do you know he isn't up HERE (Above area studied)?"
That's Bumping.

The enquirey has nothing to do with Gods existence. It is asking you to clarify the claim of knowing that God is not the original cause.

You asked me to support your delusion.

No.
I asked you to explain how you know God is not the original cause.
It's a simple question, as an intelligent science/evolution/rational/logical/atheist person, I'm sure you can do better than;

"How do you know my invisible pink unicorn did not tell me so?"

Here's yo chance to shine baby.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

cruiser,

i have faith in it so i must be right

You got me!

general statements that do not answer a question arent appropriate

Erm, excuse me!
That was a perfect answer, read it again and think about it.

i have been conditioned with conditioner. who are you to dispute that

I am an experienced conditioner saleman. That's who.

i have been bought up to believe in a god.

Were you?
What went wrong?

i grew up and stopped entertaining childish ideas as reality. sure i like unicorns but untill your bring me one i refuse to believe they exist

Yes, I see what went wrong, it's a common illusion.
My heart goes out to you.

software:written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory.

I guess terms like, figure of speech, metaphorical, humorous banter, etc, are lost on you huh!.

i refuse to believe that a person bought up being taught only that which is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, with no mention of god to them not even to tell them that there is or isnt a god,will know a god and worship a god.

Notice such scenarios are only fantasy, and not based in reality at all.

...because i do not believe that god is something imprinted in your brain. i believe god is just an idea that you learn.

Then ask yourself why every adult human being in the world (more than likely), most probably throughout all time, has some idea of a supreme being, or a being that created the world, and themselves. Even societies who are credited with the birth of civilisation, science, mathematics, politics, philosophy.

because this is totally irrational and unfounded of me. i apologise if you believe in dumbledore and harry, but i assume you dont, as god demands you to be monotheistic

Sheesh, Jimi Hendrix set his guitar on fire, wrote songs about kissing the sky, and if sixes were nines, liked to get high with at least 2 of honies. And I've never heard him being described as mad.

If God demanded something of me personally, I would be quite overwhelmed to say the least.

I suggest that now you are free of what was most-probably religious indoctrination, you should actually try and understand who and what God is, regardless of whether you believe or not.

you said replica. this implies that there first had to be somthing to replicate.

Very intuitive. Touche!
But I'm quite sure you know what i meant.
I'm going to have to be careful with my wording.

and im not sure what you are implying but yes. i do believe a human could replicate that. during ww2 many Homo erectus fossils were destroyed. luckily some clever cookie had made casts of the skulls. replicas were then made and they would easily fool the human eye, they are very realistic

So how do you know what you saw was the actual fossill?
And no wise-guy-ism please.

no. i really dont find that helpful.... but i cant speak for everyone

I don't believe you, but there is nothing I do about your response.

this is true. but you cant prove that there is extra aid. are you saying my car appears to work without oil? im kindof lost....

I'm saying, when you buy a brand new car, it comes will oil in the engine.
Without oil, the engine will seize-up. So oil is what make the car's moving parts work smoothly. If you don't know that, you'll think the parts are moving without any help untill your engine seizes up.

again i dont think it is reality, simply part of reality
it is real and true. i can touch it, see it, use it to effect other things. it is just a very aged dead organism. i regard it to be as real as any of the dead lambs that are lying all around the countryside at the moment. they arent suddenly fake coz they died.

As I said, my argument is not based on whether or not it is reality.
I want to know how you know that you were in touch with reality, and your friend wasn't. You brought up the issue of reality, not me.

jan.
i cant marry you, i wish to live in a large mansion with 3 wives and 4 husbands, i cant have you tying me down. xox

I can't compete with that, I'm just a humble multi-millionaire.
No wonder you left the catholic establisment.
It's all clear now.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly,
I don't think the idea of the theory is nonsense, although some folks will use it nonsensically to back up their ideas. You being a prime example.
If you have psychology sources to back up your concept, be my guest.
Are you suggesting that evolution is intelligent?

Now... this is clearly a case of you twisting my words in order to validate your claim.

Let's re-examine what was actually said, shall we?

Jan said:
"Neverfly,
That's nonsensical.
If anything human intelligence shapes evolution.
Survival is a triumph of intelligence. "

I didn't agree with you. You stated we CANNOT directly observe reality.
If you actually knew this was true then your statement would be a contradiction. Do you get it?

Nope, I don't. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue in order to make it appear as though I'm confused.

That we cannot DIRECTLY observe reality is a cornerstone of why we use the scientific method. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the scientific method at all.

Not... that that is news...

I said; The conclusion drawn from it is reality as far as it is understood to be, not reality period.

Still looks the same to me.

You didn't understand my point. Did you?

Appears as though I did and then I refuted it.
Perhaps if you were better at making concise points and spent less time obfuscating, such problems wouldn't arise...

Of course it would because there is no way to access it by scientific method.
Are you always this silly, or are you putting on a special show for me.
Do you know what supernatural means?

Yes, I'm always this silly.

Are you aware that there are millions of claims of what is considered supernatural events throughout all known time (including now)?
Are you going to tell me that they were and are all deluded?

Like this one?
http://yportal.com/images/grilledcheeselarge.png
You tell me, are all claims of unicorns, Paul Bunyan, goblins, fairies etc
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Mysteries-World-Sylvia-Browne/dp/1401900852
Deluded people?

Here's a link for you and lightgigantic to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Are you suggesting that evolution demonstrates a lack of God?
Proof?

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Instead of admitting ignorance on the subject and then somehow claiming that supports your claim of ad hom against me... Try LEARNING something and doing something about your ignorance First-- Then do something with your claims.

No, I'm suggesting evolution does not demonstrate a lack of God, unless
one wants it to.

No, Evolution shows what it shows and deluded people try to fit God in there because they can't let go of the idea.

Why would you risk the chance of losing your money on such idiotic reasoning?

This question makes no sense.

Because that is what you have thus far revealed.
The fact that you think spending 5 years in a ministry means you develop understanding of God, secures my claim.

Uhhh.... No. I've demonstrated that is not the case, you admitted your knowledge is slight, and you regularly claim that irrelevant issues support your claims even though it's the opposite.
I've reached the conclusion that you must think other people are very stupid that they can't see through your charade...

Another reason why I know you understand zilch is that you see no value
someone admiting they know very little about a subject matter.
Also, you have no idea how great God (or even the concept) actually is.

I understand the value quite well: If you're ignorant on the topic, your arguments have little merit.

The enquirey has nothing to do with Gods existence. It is asking you to clarify the claim of knowing that God is not the original cause.

You mean, "Inquiry."
And no, I do not know that God is not the original cause. Nor do I know that Paul Bunyan, a giant cheez-whiz gobbling space dragon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not the original cause, either. You can't PROVE that any of them aren't.
But I'd be pretty fuckin' crazy to think that any of those imaginary creatures did some magic when volumes of collected knowledge display a much simpler probability.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Now... this is clearly a case of you twisting my words in order to validate your claim.

Let's re-examine what was actually said, shall we?

Jan said:
"Neverfly,
That's nonsensical.
If anything human intelligence shapes evolution.
Survival is a triumph of intelligence. "

What's your point? :shrug:

Nope, I don't. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue in order to make it appear as though I'm confused.

Fraid you don't require my help for that.
Your claim asserts that we CANNOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE REALITY.
Is this claim based on reality or not?
If it is explain how the scientific method deduced that.

I said; The conclusion drawn from it is reality as far as it is understood to be, not reality period.

Still looks the same to me.

No it's not the same.
Reality has to be understood.

Appears as though I did and then I refuted it.

You didn't.

Perhaps if you were better at making concise points and spent less time obfuscating, such problems wouldn't arise...

My points were good enough.

Like this one?
http://yportal.com/images/grilledcheeselarge.png
You tell me, are all claims of unicorns, Paul Bunyan, goblins, fairies etc
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Mysteries-World-Sylvia-Browne/dp/1401900852
Deluded people?

Why are they deluded?

Here's a link for you and lightgigantic to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Your word of the decade I take it, why you keep ramming it down
our fricken throats.
It originated in Greece, it must be deeply profound, and meaningful. :crazy:

Anyways, wtf do you want me to look at it for?

http://www.talkorigins.org/

LOL!!! These guys went out with the idea everything came from nothing.
I get my information from varieties of sources.
But if they cover the information you have been asked to provide, then hand to me on plate dude (figure of speech).

Instead of admitting ignorance on the subject and then somehow claiming that supports your claim of ad hom against me...

Ad-hom. You believe you descended from monkey-type-thingimibobs don't you? You should feel happy that I'm honouring that.

Try LEARNING something and doing something about your ignorance First-- Then do something with your claims.

Blah! Blah! Blah! Where's the proof?

No, Evolution shows what it shows and deluded people try to fit God in there because they can't let go of the idea.

Has this conclusion been through the same rigourous standard of science as your other startling piece of knowledge WE CANNOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE REALITY?

This question makes no sense.

It means, why the fuck do you want to part wit yo moneh?

I've reached the conclusion that you must think other people are very stupid that they can't see through your charade...

Has that also gone through the rigours?

I understand the value quite well: If you're ignorant on the topic, your arguments have little merit.

On the ignorant bits, yeah.

You mean, "Inquiry."

I do indeed, thank you for dilligently pointing that out.
You are indeed a superior being.

And no, I do not know that God is not the original cause.

I was begining to suspect that maybe there was a slight chance that you may not have been in possession of that knowledge.

Nor do I know that Paul Bunyan, a giant cheez-whiz gobbling space dragon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not the original cause, either.

IRRELEVANT!! (To be said in a Dalek voice repeatedly)

jan.

 

[scifes]

How do you figure that?

VI and I are on the same page here. I too don't believe in God, because I've had nothing leading me to that viewpoint.

i'm sure an uneducated fish seller had nothing pointing him to the belief in electrons.

Not one shred of evidence has presented itself to me.

transcripts of books of physics didn't jump in his face either.

People have tried selling me God, but not one of them could give me honest answers to my questions.

i'm sure some of his scientist customers tried selling him electrons too, but none of them could give satisfactory answers either.

In the end, it comes down to faith, and personal wish fulfilment, and then people see what they want to see.

the fish seller agrees, some people wish to see matter composed of nothingness

So our viewpoints are not straw men.

they are.

They are derived from our personal experience, which has had ZERO interaction with a supreme being, nor have we come across anything that requires a paranormal explanation.

'Evidence' others present doesn't bear scrutiny either.

that's part of your personal experience, according to others, evolution didn't bear much scrutny either, some don't give a damn about scrutny at all.

Soon, I think they'll come up a with a cure for those that suffer from religion. I'm sure this is possible.

i'm sure it is too, we shall convert them all.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly,
What's your point? :shrug:

No that is telling.

Fraid you don't require my help for that.
Your claim asserts that we CANNOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE REALITY.
Is this claim based on reality or not?
If it is explain how the scientific method deduced that.

I have already explained it.
If we could directly observe reality, we would have no need for scientific models to describe reality.
All measurements would be instantaneous and precise if we could directly observe reality.
Since we cannot directly observe reality, we can only make numerous observations and compare them with others. Then build a model to describe what we've seen. Once built, a model must be vigorously tested, checked and re-checked for accuracy.
New observations and corrections of accuracy must be used to repair the model as needed.

No it's not the same.
Reality has to be understood.

Let's read what you said:
Jan: "The conclusion drawn from it is reality as far as it is understood to be, not reality period."
Bingo.
You said it's as understood to be, not a direct observation. Not reality Period.
You said the same thing.

You didn't.

That's it? No explanation as to how I didn't?
If that's all you got is denial- then, "Yes, I did.'

Now what are you gonna do?

My points were good enough.

Clearly they weren't and my complaint was against your Obfuscation. Your points I can handle.

Why are they deluded?

Because that is the given description for people out of touch with reality and prone to flights of fancy and musings of fantasy that they then claim is actually an aspect of reality.

Your word of the decade I take it, why you keep ramming it down
our fricken throats.
It originated in Greece, it must be deeply profound, and meaningful. :crazy:

Anyways, wtf do you want me to look at it for?

To learn.

LOL!!! These guys went out with the idea everything came from nothing.
I get my information from varieties of sources.
But if they cover the information you have been asked to provide, then hand to me on plate dude (figure of speech).

I covered the "Everything came from nothing claim very clearly already. See my small debate with Cruiser on this.
I shouldn't have to repeat myself every time you suffer a failure to read.

Blah! Blah! Blah! Where's the proof?

Double standard, much?
I have provided a great deal of links, supporting evidence and clear descriptions.

You have provided obfuscation, personal attacks and weaseling.

The "proof" is in the pudding.

Has this conclusion been through the same rigourous standard of science as your other startling piece of knowledge WE CANNOT DIRECTLY OBSERVE REALITY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

It means, why the fuck do you want to part wit yo moneh?

It was nonsense the second time around, too.

IRRELEVANT!!

Relevant.
Any claim of a non-faslifiable being is equally valid when compared to other fictitious and fantastic creatures that are not as believed in as the one being supported by a strong bias.
It causes the person to accept that they have no more support for their fantasy than others do for ones that are not supported by a large crowd of believers.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

No that is telling.

Good, because I'm asking.

I have already explained it.
If we could directly observe reality, we would have no need for scientific models to describe reality.

Scientific models can't describe anything, that's a job for humans.

All measurements would be instantaneous and precise if we could directly observe reality.

If we couldn't directly observe reality, we would be non the wiser.

Let's read what you said:
Jan: "The conclusion drawn from it is reality as far as it is understood to be, not reality period."
Bingo.
You said it's as understood to be, not a direct observation. Not reality Period.
You said the same thing.

Reality is reality whether it is known/understood or not.
It does not magically become reality because we now understand it.

That's it? No explanation as to how I didn't?
If that's all you got is denial- then, "Yes, I did.'

Way to go with setting the example.

Clearly they weren't and my complaint was against your Obfuscation. Your points I can handle.

I said;

"Looking for supernatural, or divine source under strict scientific circumstances, is like looking for the actual thing that makes a joke funny to some folks. Or looking for the actual thing that makes someone dance beautifully. These things are in the moment. Reality is now, always. "

What part of that was vague, obscure, or unecessarily complicated? :shrug:

Becaus that is the given description for people out of touch with reality and prone to flights of fancy and musings of fantasy that they then claim is actually an aspect of reality.

I know what 'delusional' means.
You described some people as "deluded".
Why are they deluded?

To learn.

Learn what?

I covered the "Everything came from nothing claim very clearly already. See my small debate with Cruiser on this.
I shouldn't have to repeat myself every time you suffer a failure to read.

Did you read what I wrote?

Double standard, much?
I have provided a great deal of links, supporting evidence and clear descriptions.

In your dreams.

The "proof" is in the pudding.

This is your problem.
The proof of the "pudding" is in the eating, IOW some kind of experience.
You just see the pudding and make up the experience of taste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

:shrug

Relevant.
Any claim of a non-faslifiable being is equally valid when compared to other fictitious and fantastic creatures that are not as believed in as the one being supported by a strong bias.

God isn't dependant on belief or lack of.
IOW if everybody in the world suddenly decided to become atheist, it would
make no difference to the notion that God is as defined in scripture.

It causes the person to accept that they have no more support for their fantasy than others do for ones that are not supported by a large crowd of believers.

Why do you regard "God" as a "fantasy"+

jan.

 

[cruiser]

You got me!

hannah=1 jan=0

Erm, excuse me!
That was a perfect answer, read it again and think about it.

going to be honest. it was crap. its like if you asked me what i bought at the shop and i said oh you know, what does anyone buy at the shop? completely terrible answer as there are many things people buy at shops

I am an experienced conditioner saleman. That's who.

then you will notice that i have well conditioned hair?

Yes, I see what went wrong, it's a common illusion.
My heart goes out to you.

thanks. i collect them.

I guess terms like, figure of speech, metaphorical, humorous banter, etc, are lost on you huh!.

your the one who resents sarcasm...

Notice such scenarios are only fantasy, and not based in reality at all.

like god.....
my point being that god is an idea people teach you. i was being hypothetical.
and while we are at it..... what is reality. why is this situation not reality. why do you consider your god to be reality. how do u know its not reality

Then ask yourself why every adult human being in the world (more than likely), most probably throughout all time, has some idea of a supreme being, or a being that created the world, and themselves. Even societies who are credited with the birth of civilisation, science, mathematics, politics, philosophy.

i think thats a very bold statement to make. since legally becoming an adult i have not thought that at all. to be honest i would call that talking out your ass.

Sheesh, Jimi Hendrix set his guitar on fire, wrote songs about kissing the sky, and if sixes were nines, liked to get high with at least 2 of honies. And I've never heard him being described as mad.

If God demanded something of me personally, I would be quite overwhelmed to say the least.

I suggest that now you are free of what was most-probably religious indoctrination, you should actually try and understand who and what God is, regardless of whether you believe or not.

i have. he was mad. he was also freakin awesome and talented.
god demands you worship only one god that god being him.
oh i jumped on the christian band wagon for a few weeks too, god just really isnt my thing. i just cant force myself to believe in somthing im so sure doesnt exist. i enjoy getting high and having sex before marriage with whoever takes my fancy. I refuse to worship someone who wants to send me to hell for comminting sins i love to commit.

So how do you know what you saw was the actual fossill?
And no wise-guy-ism please.

As I said, my argument is not based on whether or not it is reality.
I want to know how you know that you were in touch with reality, and your friend wasn't. You brought up the issue of reality, not me.

a few reasons. buuuuuuuut just because i can im going to say....
i have faith. and who are you to question faith?
i didnt say i was in touch with reality i said the amonite was real. its a real, dead animal. im saying she has been easily led and believes anything her christian group tells her. inquiry is not encouraged in her religion, she does not question.
do you believe the fossil is real?

I'm saying, when you buy a brand new car, it comes will oil in the engine.
Without oil, the engine will seize-up. So oil is what make the car's moving parts work smoothly. If you don't know that, you'll think the parts are moving without any help untill your engine seizes up.

but i do know that its there. i can see it and touch it if i choose to look a little harder and find it, your argument reinforces the principles of science rather than god.

I can't compete with that, I'm just a humble multi-millionaire.
No wonder you left the catholic establisment.
It's all clear now.

Exactly, I do not enjoy raping small boys or being ridiculed for my sexual preferences. i like studying old dead things the church believes do not exist and am quite happy to live a life of sin.

 

[Neverfly]

Good, because I'm asking.

Jeeez.... No... You asked what my point was and you shrugged when I clarified how you were using deception in your arguments.
I said it was telling.

C'mon- Keep up with me here.

The rest of your post is more obfuscation and tilting at windmills... I'm removing the junk from the post that is just trash talk or irrelevant. Since none of your posts yet have any real support for any of your statements, I'm actually being very liberal in how much I remove.

Way to go with setting the example.

You still haven't clarified how I did not achieve what I said I had, even though you denied that I had.

I think you must have forgotten most of the discussion, considering most of your replies... They make no sense at all.

"Looking for supernatural, or divine source under strict scientific circumstances, is like looking for the actual thing that makes a joke funny to some folks. Or looking for the actual thing that makes someone dance beautifully. These things are in the moment. Reality is now, always. "

What part of that was vague, obscure, or unecessarily complicated? :shrug:

None of it.

I also pointed out the flaws and fallacies of your claim and your inconsistencies.
What makes a joke funny to some people can be measured, described and mapped within the brain.
The supernatural, divine or holy is NOT falsifiable.

What part of that do you fail to understand?

Learn what?

About many topics in which you participate ignorantly.
Learning about them so that you have a clue as to what you are talking about could be very helpful to you.

Did you read what I wrote?

You failed to clarify how it was I failed to refute your claims.
You have failed to address any of the links I've posted or the support I've given my arguments.
You kinda blow past them and the rest of the commentary I removed was superfluous crap designed to obfuscate.

I have read everything you wrote and most of it was garbage.

I've responded to the parts that can, at least, stand up to some scrutiny-- But you tend to sweep the rebuttals under the rug and pretend it never happened.

So let me ask you-- When are YOU going to read what others inform you about?
When are you going to learn?
Admitting ignorance is not honorable when you choose to stay ignorant.

 

[Jan Ardena]

cruiser,

hannah=1 jan=0

Man always let's woman win in playfight.

going to be honest. it was crap. its like if you asked me what i bought at the shop and i said oh you know, what does anyone buy at the shop? completely terrible answer as there are many things people buy at shops

It's little wonder you think my answer is crap, if that's how you percieved it.
The study of ancient culture, and thought by using modern day example who exhibit the same or similar culture, or thought process is an anthropological pursuit.

then you will notice that i have well conditioned hair?

I think i'd have to see you first.

your the one who resents sarcasm...

I'm ok with sarcasm, if it fits.

lke god.....
my point being that god is an idea people teach you.
i was being hypothetical.

I take it you agree that (thus far) life is only known to come from life.
So how do conclude that God is a fantasy, as opposed to the fantasy that
life is generated from non-life despite no evidence to support.

and while we are at it..... what is reality. why is this situation not reality. why do you consider your god to be reality. how do u know its not reality

In this context reality is perception, and the scenario you presented does not exist, has not existed, and IMO cannot or will not exist.

I consider God to be reality because God makes the most sense.

i think thats a very bold statement to make. since legally becoming an adult i have not thought that at all. to be honest i would call that talking out your ass.

So you're telling me that since becoming an adult the idea, belief, lack of belief, or contemplation of God, has not entered into your mind.

Please take into consideration your current activity when you make your answer.

i have. he was mad. he was also freakin awesome and talented.

Why did you think he was mad?

god demands you worship only one god that god being him.

God demanded that Israelites worship him alone.
But outside of that I know of no demand upon humans.

oh i jumped on the christian band wagon for a few weeks too, god just really isnt my thing. i just cant force myself to believe in somthing im so sure doesnt exist. i enjoy getting high and having sex before marriage with whoever takes my fancy.

I can understand that.
I think honesty is the only way to understand truth/reality.

I refuse to worship someone who wants to send me to hell for comminting sins i love to commit.

That's like saying 'i refuse to respect and obey the law of the land who will
send me to prison for commiting the crimes I love to commit'.

a few reasons. buuuuuuuut just because i can im going to say....
i have faith. and who are you to question faith?

I am the faith daddy of Montegue Pines.

i didnt say i was in touch with reality i said the amonite was real.
its a real, dead animal. im saying she has been easily led and believes anything her christian group tells her. inquiry is not encouraged in her religion, she does not question.

That's some mixed up stuff there.
Sort it out (please ).

do you believe the fossil is real?

I don't know what to believe, as I wasn't there.
And that's not the issue anyways.

Exactly, I do not enjoy raping small boys or being ridiculed for my sexual preferences. i like studying old dead things the church believes do not exist and am quite happy to live a life of sin.

So catholics rape small boys?
Phew, that lets the Nambla of the hook.
Nice fellas those Namblans.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

Are you aware that there are millions of claims of what is considered supernatural events throughout all known time (including now)?
Are you going to tell me that they were and are all deluded?

Yep.

That's what it looks like, anyway. Any reason to think otherwise?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yep.

That's what it looks like, anyway. Any reason to think otherwise?

Why does it look like that?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Jeeez.... No... You asked what my point was and you shrugged when I clarified how you were using deception in your arguments.
I said it was telling.
C'mon- Keep up with me here.

I know what you meant.
I was being facetious.

The rest of your post is more obfuscation and tilting at windmills... I'm removing the junk from the post that is just trash talk or irrelevant. Since none of your posts yet have any real support for any of your statements, I'm actually being very liberal in how much I remove.

Regarding scientific models of reality;

these are simplistic ideas of what can be considered to be reality. the initial idea, consideration, and the conclusion are human constructs of reality.

you seem to be under the impression that reality is somehow separate to us.
which is complete nonesense. reality = perception otherwise nothing exists including this conversation.

You said it's as understood to be, not a direct observation. Not reality Period.
You said the same thing.

i'll explain one more time.
there is nothing else but reality, or nothing exists.
your claim that we cannot directly observe reality is a direct observation of reality based on your perception of reality, opposing anothers direct perception of reality. your statement is illogical as it suggests we can and can't do something simultaneosly.

we can consider something to be reality, but upon reflection, evidence, experience, etc, change our minds.
but this is not an inability to observe reality,
but an improvement on our existing perception
which always remains in reality.

You still haven't clarified how I did not achieve what I said I had, even though you denied that I had.
I think you must have forgotten most of the discussion, considering most of your replies... They make no sense at all.

i said;

"Looking for supernatural, or divine source under strict scientific circumstances, is like looking for the actual thing that makes a joke funny to some folks. Or looking for the actual thing that makes someone dance beautifully. These things are in the moment. Reality is now, always. "

to which you replied;

”What makes the brain laugh at absurdity or why the brain responds to our perception of beauty CAN be described, measured and studied scientifically."


Your reply, apart from being likened to a post-dated cheque, is entirely irrelevant. I suggest you read my point again and think about what it means before you reply..

The supernatural, divine or holy is NOT falsifiable.
What part of that do you fail to understand?

What does this have to do with my point?

Learning about them so that you have a clue as to what you are talking about could be very helpful to you.

So putting your fave word up for exhibition is your way of helping me learn
about everything I've been talking about?

You failed to clarify how it was I failed to refute your claims.

Your talking shite.
You gave me a link (as though i'd never seen it before), and expected me
to do your work for you. I made a reference to the tune of people don't use that link anymore, to which you ranted on about some discussion you and cruiser had on "everything come from nothing". I told you to go away and come back with the relevant information as my time is not for wasting.

Now you come with this shite. Sheesh!!

You have failed to address any of the links I've posted or the support I've given my arguments.

Your links are irrelevant.
But your too proud to realise this.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Regarding scientific models of reality;

these are simplistic ideas of what can be considered to be reality.

you seem to be under the impression that reality is somehow separate to us.
which is complete nonesense. reality = perception otherwise nothing exists including this conversation.

You are creating this separation. I did not.
Being unable to directly observe reality is a very simple concept.
You just said it, yourself. Again. Read it:

the initial idea, consideration, and the conclusion are human constructs of reality.

What I had said was, "We cannot DIRECTLY observe reality."
You have spelled out clearly the case of how we cannot Directly observe reality in your counter-argument as to how we could. It's rather mind-boggling how you did that.

Your reply, apart from being likened to a post-dated cheque, is entirely irrelevant. I suggest you read my point again and think about what it means before you reply...

Dude, look whose talking? You can't even figure out that half the time you're agreeing with me and yet, you have to Think Up ways to misconstrue my statement in order to support your disagreement!
Don't talk to me about 'thinking' until you've practiced a bit of it.

You gave me a link (as though i'd never seen it before), and expected me
to do your work for you. I made a reference to the tune of people don't use that link anymore, to which you ranted on about some discussion you and cruiser had on "everything come from nothing". I told you to go away and come back with the relevant information as my time is not for wasting.

Speaking of unable to observe reality... Wow...
Ok Jan.
I referenced a link. I don't know what people use what links- it ain't a popularity contest. The link is a reference and a citation. I don't care who uses it.
It's up to YOU to do YOUR work for YOU. I provided you the means. But I cannot THINK for you. If I could- your posts would make a great deal more sense.
As far as referencing the "Something from nothing claim", you now say I RANTED?
And you talk about wasting peoples time?
Mother Sucker go get Educated before you try to talk shit.
That post contains enough hypocritical and contradictory nonsense to make it into the Guinness Book of Records as most deluded post.

You can't even tell what YOU are saying half of the time. Why should anyone listen to you claim that others don't? You're not a reliable source.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Mother sucker?
:roflmao::roflmao:

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Yeah, I was pretty proud of that one myself...

post got attitude.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yeah, I was pretty proud of that one myself...

post got attitude.

Like it.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

Like it.

jan.

Well, are you going to refute it or roll around on the floor?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, are you going to refute it or roll around on the floor?

The whole response?
I will, I'm just in the middle of something at the moment.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

You are creating this separation. I did not.
Being unable to directly observe reality is a very simple concept.
You just said it, yourself. Again. Read it:

the initial idea, consideration, and the conclusion are human constructs of reality.

You are are seeing change in perceptions of individual reality as a kind of pause. For example your watching a dvd, you fancy a cup tea, so you simply pause the the player. In reality there is no pause, everything is actual.

If you are as high as a kite, or you have been knocked the f^*k out cold.
You are still in reality, but tho your perception may be different.

What I had said was, "We cannot DIRECTLY observe reality."
You have spelled out clearly the case of how we cannot Directly observe reality in your counter-argument as to how we could. It's rather mind-boggling how you did that.

Read above.

Dude, look whose talking? You can't even figure out that half the time you're agreeing with me and yet, you have to Think Up ways to misconstrue my statement in order to support your disagreement!

Unless you can give an appropriate example of your claim, that is at best a throwawy statement, and at worse a personal attack

Don't talk to me about 'thinking' until you've practiced a bit of it.

Err, hello! My thinking is joined up, and as such I pick and choose from any part of it to make a point. Your's, I'm sorry to say is random and with strokes of hopefullness thrown in. Hoping that I can't see through you.
For example you claim that the person alluding to that piece of toast as something supernatural was deluded. Dude, did you actually look at that piece of toast. Now, I don't know whether that person's belief was delusional, but I am not going to deny what I saw. You will. You will put an end to it because it does not match with your world view. And as such create a barrier of intimidation to anyone who does not agree with you.
This, my dear sir, is ignorance of the highest order. And it is not because you are atheist. Religions of the institutional kind have done the same thing.

The link is a reference and a citation. I don't care who uses it.

Err, you did the equivelant of accompanying me to the front door, knocking on it, then did a runner. I gave you 2 questions to answer, the second one being in the vain of 'are you telling me that everybody from time immemorial, and billions of folk now, are DELUDED'.
Now why the f^*k do I need to snooping around talk origins or wiki pedia to answer my question to you? DUH!!! :bugeye:

And further more, to this day you still have not provided an answer. Even Iceaura chimed in with some pathetic response, albeit in a hit and run fashion.

It's up to YOU to do YOUR work for YOU.

I do all my own work. I have answered and responded to everything you've thrown at me. That you don't understand, and choose to throw stones is not my problem.

But I cannot THINK for you. If I could- your posts would make a great deal more sense.

Said like a true institutionalist, with no regard for the individual.

As far as referencing the "Something from nothing claim", you now say I RANTED?

Figure of speech.

And you talk about wasting peoples time?

You want me go snooping in talk origins. For what?

Mother Sucker go get Educated before you try to talk shit.

I am educated, just not in foolishness.

That post contains enough hypocritical and contradictory nonsense to make it into the Guinness Book of Records as most deluded post.

That's fighting talk.
Fool, post a picture of your face, so I can photo-shop you getting bitch-slapped.

jan.