Off-topic posts from the "Evidence that God is real" thread

[iceaura]

On the plus side, we at least have your decision to temporarily lay off the "abrahamic" BS for a few posts at least.

A clue to the only interesting question that arises when overt Abrahamic theists post on science forums ("Why do they?"): they post almost nothing except personal disparagement based on misrepresentations of various kinds, directed at those they believe represent scientific (and especially atheistic) worldviews. That is, literally, the bulk of their posting - often, as there, without even a fig leaf of passing reference to any issue at hand. It's not just the latest couple - it's a standing pattern.

By now it's fair to suggest that posting these disparagements is their agenda, and any issues or topics presented by them are merely pretexts.

So it's not a question of playing chess with a chicken, but one of dealing with organized and coherent bullying.

 

[Musika]

A clue to the only interesting matter that arises when overt Abrahamic theists post on science forums ("Why do they?"): they post almost nothing except personal disparagement based on misrepresentations of various kinds, directed at those they believe represent scientific (and especially atheistic) worldviews. That is, literally, the bulk of their posting - often, as there, without even a fig leaf of passing reference to any issue at hand. It's not just the latest couple - it's a standing pattern.

By now it's fair to suggest that posting these disparagements is their agenda, and any issues or topics presented by them are merely pretexts.

But wait a sec!
If I am, as you say I am, an abrahamic theist, then surely at least in this regard you would have no bone to pick?
Is it too much to ask that you at least display consistency in your trolling?

 

[Michael 345]

I hope you are well.

No problems and on track for November Bali holiday with couple mates from Melbourne

So if it works it is the truth?

If it doesn't work suffer the consequences?

And if it works sometimes but not others?

This is in reference to me believing (have faith) I can fly and acting on such faith which kx000 seems to imply such faith as per

Science upholds knowledge, faith gives us truth.

gives me truth (ie I can fly)

But then

Again, the point is to faith gives us truth.

Arr so NOW I have to check (validate). Soooo faith is NOT enough.

Poof goes Jan IS

Sounds like faith gives us truth is morphing into validate the belief

In other words (if I follow correctly) FAITH gives way to SCIENCE

Who would have thought that?
Please sir Michael 345 I did

 

[Beer w/Straw]

This is some post I made in some semantic thread on another forum it may have some relevance.


Max Rockatansky said: ↑
He also wrote the book Contact and the story outline for the movie, which was oddly very spiritual in many ways. I also like this scene with the religious Palmer Joss to scientist Ellie Arroway:
Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father?

Ellie Arroway: What?

Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?

Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.

Palmer Joss: Prove it.


I said:


I love my brother. When we were little I remember him adamantly wanting to have a bonsai tree. One recent Christmas I actually saw some for sale...

When he took off the wrapping he could hardly believe his eyes...

 

[iceaura]

But wait a sec!
If I am, as you say I am, an abrahamic theist, then surely at least in this regard you would have no bone to pick?
Is it too much to ask that you at least display consistency in your trolling?

From the post prompting that response*:

By now it's fair to suggest that posting these disparagements is their agenda, and any issues or topics presented by them are merely pretexts.

So it's not a question of playing chess with a chicken, but one of dealing with organized and coherent bullying.

*Edited a bit late, but not unfairly and not in response

 

[Musika]

From the post prompting that response:

Also from that post ...

A clue to the only interesting matter that arises when overt Abrahamic theists post on science forums ...

Is it too much to ask that you display consistency with your trolling?

 

[iceaura]

Also from that post ...

A clue to the only interesting matter that arises when overt Abrahamic theists post on science forums ...

Is it too much to ask that you display consistency with your trolling?

So it's not a question of playing chess with a chicken, but one of dealing with organized and coherent bullying.

 

[Musika]

So it's not a question of playing chess with a chicken, but one of dealing with organized and coherent bullying.

If you are not organized and coherent it doesn't necessarily default you to chess playing chicken status.

 

[billvon]

I see nothing in any religious text that represents a convincing account of a revelation by a god. Which accounts do you find convincing?

Ha! He doesn't answer such questions. He usually replies:

I already posted a link. Too bad you can't read.
If you're too stupid to know which accounts they are, I can't help you.
Sounds like your atheist delusion is getting in the way of your understanding!

Or some such. He's not here to discuss.

 

[Michael 345]

We're almost 400 posts into this thread and the theists have presented virtually nothing in the way of actual evidence for their beliefs

Please please keep this thread going as long as possible

But I have a request. At the end can i have the mining rights to the pigeon ganoo fertilizer?

I promise to clean up the chess board or buy you a new one if beyond repair

 

[Michael 345]

And you KNOW this how?
.

Because it said on Wikipedia that human beings have a God gene

Oh I never thought of that

Wikipedia no less

And I tried this tip below

You've had a conception of God in your dreams but you just can't recall it. Just Google dream recall so you can catch it the next time it comes around.

and BINGO I recalled a dream

Now I know god looks like this



Yah ✓

I am saved

(sciforums really do need a sarcastic font)

 

[iceaura]

Its not so much about being beyond empiricism, but being beyond the individual or cooperative empirical efforts of a specific population.

Overt Abrahamic theists who post on science forums, for example.

One cannot cooperate in an empirical effort, or even attempt such an endeavor, while posting in bad faith, asserting falsehoods, and devoting the bulk of one's typing to personal attack and disparagement.

It's the wages of sin, so to speak - the con man cannot obtain the benefits of honest dealing, the betrayer can have no real friends.

The question is why these people - who cannot participate in any of the actual discussion on a science forum - post here and in other science forums.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Just Google one, any one.

I did but there are so many references it would seem my initial request for a specific reply was warrented.
Alex

 

[Musika]

. . . illustrates one aspect of humanity where that foolishness and pettiness are emphasized.

Inquisition, anyone? Or perhaps I can interest you in a Crusade for your children. No? Well, at least religion will be useful in justifying the subjugation of native Americans.

Its just when you take that one aspect as the summun bonum of pettiness and foolishness, that your own personal example offers a further illustration of the deep inroads pettiness and foolishness has made into the human psyche.

 

[Musika]

Indeed. 'tis a pity no one can step up to provide a smarted-up definition of God...

If redbull guzzling slobs on atheist hate sites can't come to grade, I guess no one can, huh?

 

[DaveC426913]

If redbull guzzling slobs on atheist hate sites can't come to grade, I guess no one can, huh?

I have no idea what that means, but I'll be more clear.

You can't accuse someone of holding a dumbed down definition of God when you are in no position to correct it.
If a dumbed down definition is all that's available, then it is - er, by definition, the only definition there is.

 

[Write4U]

If redbull guzzling slobs on atheist hate sites can't come to grade, I guess no one can, huh?

That was a unwarranted general slander, Musika. For your information I am a teetotaler.

 

[Write4U]

Assuming the parameters of the problem are determined by mere obedience, then yes.

I take it you agree with me that God does not exist or doesn't care? Good for you!!! >

 

[Musika]

I have no idea what that means, but I'll be more clear.

You can't accuse someone of holding a dumbed down definition of God when you are in no position to correct it.
If a dumbed down definition is all that's available, then it is - er, by definition, the only definition there is.

I'm not sure where this notion of yours arose of there being no position to correct a definition, but it certainly explains the hubris that surrounds a majority of the attempts of atheists to land relevant critiques.

 

[Musika]

I take it you agree with me that God does not exist or doesn't care? Good for you!!!

I take it you have no problem with the before mentioned assumption that tends to drag many atheists attempts to land critiques into irrelevancy.