re-EVOL-ve

[shichimenshyo]

Posted by 786:

secondly. do not tell me what the discussion is about. i will extrapolate whatever i want from your statements and place it on the table. you feel free to deal with it or not

That could be an argument that in order for the universe to have meaning and anything in it then there needs to be someone who gave it meaning But lets not get into that.

Not posted by 786: =p

That's not a play on words. It's using the words carefully and correctly.

You are atheist for a Japanese mountain river God. Do you agree that is is possible there may really be a Japanese mountain river God? ”

Posted by 786:

You already had a thread on this type of 'possibilities'- lets leave this out-

Peace be unto you

Hmmm seems like picking and choosing to me. :shrug:

 

[786]

Posted by 786:

secondly. do not tell me what the discussion is about. i will extrapolate whatever i want from your statements and place it on the table. you feel free to deal with it or not

NOT posted by me...

That could be an argument that in order for the universe to have meaning and anything in it then there needs to be someone who gave it meaning But lets not get into that.

This is an argument that I MYSELF suggested but felt that it is better to finish whats on the plate before introducing this argument (which is MY argument)- so I haven't chosen to skip an argument by someone.... perhaps you should have paid attention to the context when you were diggin..

That's not a play on words. It's using the words carefully and correctly.

You are atheist for a Japanese mountain river God. Do you agree that is is possible there may really be a Japanese mountain river God? ”

This is Michael trying to show that I'm an Atheist- I already answered him in the previous post- then he started to talk about possibilities when the topic was if I was an Atheist or not which does NOT depend on a 'japanese god'- I already pointed this out to him in the posts before this one- so he started to talk about possibilities- which is what he talked about in a thread he made. If you read my reply to the post before this you will realize I already had answered this before he even brought it up- My effort was only to keep the thread from being worthless not that I tried to 'pick' and argument..... Michael actually doesn't know how to make arguments in the first place
”

Posted by 786:
“
You already had a thread on this type of 'possibilities'- lets leave this out-

This was after the fact realizing that Michael doesn't want to understand that I am NOT an Atheist but to continue spewing possibilities to specific gods to try to show that I am an Atheist- which I already clarified prior- So realizing that he basically wants to turn this thread into one of his own I suggested to leave this out because quite frankly it had nothing to do with me being an Atheist or not.

Hmmm seems like picking and choosing to me. :shrug:

Seems to me you need to do digging + context..... or better digging skills

Peace be unto you

 

[shichimenshyo]

This was after the fact realizing that Michael doesn't want to understand that I am NOT an Atheist but to continue spewing possibilities to specific gods to try to show that I am an Atheist- which I already clarified prior- So realizing that he basically wants to turn this thread into one of his own I suggested to leave this out because quite frankly it had nothing to do with me being an Atheist or not.

Yet when people try to show you that atheism is not synonomous with a lack of morals you continue to make calims to the opposite effect.

second: I'm sorry if I quoted you wrong, its difficult to post and work at the same time.

 

[786]

Yet when people try to show you that atheism is not synonomous with a lack of morals you continue to make calims to the opposite effect.

If you have followed this thread, I have repeated said I KNOW that Atheism doesn't provide a moral system- My question was about compatibility! Anyways we're done with that topic so lets not start again.

second: I'm sorry if I quoted you wrong, its difficult to post and work at the same time.

No prob...

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

this being is outside Natural laws- God is outside of nature-...

Yet, another tired faith based assertion with no logic or reasoning.

Have you checked the glove compartment of your car, maybe he's hiding in there?

 

[786]

Yet, another tired faith based assertion with no logic or reasoning.

Reasoning is simple... the nature must be caused (assumption) and thus there must be a cause that is outside the nature- as nature is what it created.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

the new topic is the proof against God....

Yes, when you can't come up with a single iota of "proof" for your gods existence, you have nowhere to go but from deluded to dishonest.

 

[786]

Yes, when you can't come up with a single iota of "proof" for your gods existence, you have nowhere to go but from deluded to dishonest.

Lol.... turning on your self eh? First you asked for reasoning now you realize that you were dumb.... :shrug:

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Reasoning is simple... the nature must be caused (assumption) and thus there must be a cause that is outside the nature- as nature is what it created.

And, the cause, as far as you're concerned, is magical, waving hands.

That is faith based reasoning, not reasoning requiring any thought, just belief in myths and superstitions.

 

[786]

That is faith based reasoning, not reasoning requiring any thought, just belief in myths and superstitions.

No if something can be argued logically it is still logical regardless of faith or not.... you are denying the logic on faith

Peace be unto you

 

[shichimenshyo]

If you derive a conclusion without any proof how is that logical? :shrug:

 

[(Q)]

No if something can be argued logically it is still logical regardless of faith or not.... you are denying the logic on faith

Your lack of logic doesn't require faith on my part.

 

[786]

If you derive a conclusion without any proof how is that logical? :shrug:

Logic doesn't require proof.... logic is simply a thought process.... Science requires logic + proof.... why must everything be scientific?

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Your lack of logic doesn't require faith on my part.

Same here

Peace be unto you

 

[shichimenshyo]

Logic doesn't require proof.... logic is simply a thought process.... Science requires logic + proof.... why must everything be scientific?

Peace be unto you

Because it is an established median for understanding and quantifying the world around us. Proof is also required in almost all other aspects of our lives as well.
get pulled over..proof of insurance.
Trial..innocent until proven guilty
Buy a car...you need a proof of purchase/registration.

:shrug:
It just seems that having proof for our claims is an established and effective trend.

 

[(Q)]

Logic doesn't require proof.... logic is simply a thought process.... Science requires logic + proof.... why must everything be scientific?

Oh I see, now. You don't know the meaning of logic. It is a system of reasoning, not a system to support faith based delusions.

 

[786]

Because it is an established median for understanding and quantifying the world around us. Proof is also required in almost all other aspects of our lives as well.
get pulled over..proof of insurance.
Trial..innocent until proven guilty
Buy a car...you need a proof of purchase/registration.

:shrug:
It just seems that having proof for our claims is an established and effective trend.

'quantifying the world around us'- even the things that can not be quantified?

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Oh I see, now. You don't know the meaning of logic. It is a system of reasoning, not a system to support faith based delusions.

Reasoning is a thought process.... you don't have to go out of your way to show that you're stupid

Peace be unto you

 

[shichimenshyo]

'quantifying the world around us'- even the things that can not be quantified?

Peace be unto you

Thats why we search for a way to quantify those things using the same system, if we dont know it we dont know it, or we have a theory. That seems like a pretty reasonable way of doing things to me.

 

[786]

Thats why we search for a way to quantify those things using the same system, if we dont know it we dont know it, or we have a theory. That seems like a pretty reasonable way of doing things to me.

Right but there are things that can't be quantified, you can come up with theories but they are all assumptions as is the concept of God- sounds reasonable to me too.

Peace be unto you