Talking about god...

[superluminal]

gee a second negative claim

you don't know when to give up do you?

and how do you know this (without approaching issues of faith)?
(simple answer please)

How do I know that just because we don't know something is not a reason to insist god did it?

If you can't comprehent this simple statement, you should just give up now.

 

[(Q)]

It's your own ignorance to think that we name our ignorance "God".

Actually, that quote is FROM a theist TO an atheist. Hence, it is the atheist who is allegedly calling their own ignorance, "God".

Surely you must also recognize the difference between 'know' and 'believe'?

Yes, to 'know' means to be aware or cognizant of a fact, while to 'believe' is to accept it as a fact.

Nice to see at least that you describe it as 'unknown'...

I didn't, the theist who made the quote did.

 

[superluminal]

Of course it is, hence the triumph of intellect over instinct.

Don't worry, I read a lot more scientific literature than pop science.

And I don't confuse opinions with facts.

Great! Give me some god facts please. Should be easy for you.

Please don't sidestep this one sam.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wow. That is sooo impressively uninformative.

let me bold the important bits for you (after all I didn't provide the cover of the book for you to focus your supernatural powers on)

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

I laugh at you.

fools also have many opportunities for laughter

 

[S.A.M.]

Sung to a "Mary Poppins" tune:

"Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
Hum-diddle-diddle-diddle-hum-diddle-i
Necrohippoflagellation, theists love to use it.
Even though the horse has died, they will still abuse it.
If they beat it long enough, they think you must enthuse it.
Necrohippoflagellation, theists can't refuse it."

Alt.Atheism

Shouldn't you be resting your eyes or something?:bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

Great! Give me some god facts please. Should be easy for you.

Please don't sidestep this one sam.

What does science have to do with God? Is there a glitch in the mentality of atheists somewhere?

Why do they keep mixing their beliefs with science all the time?:bugeye:

 

[superluminal]

let me bold the important bits for you (after all I didn't provide the cover of the book for you to focus your supernatural powers on)

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

Wow. That clinches it. God exists. I'll now start capitalizing the "G" in God.

fools also have many opportunities for laughter

Self realization is a good thing. I'm glad you've come to it.

 

[(Q)]

What does science have to do with God?

Didn't god create science?

 

[superluminal]

What does science have to do with God? Is there a glitch in the mentality of atheists somewhere?

Why do they keep mixing their beliefs with science all the time?:bugeye:

We're in sci forums, trying to analyze why some people take the completely irrational belief train to ignorance. It's a scientific endeavor.

 

[superluminal]

Didn't god create science?

Don't be rediculous. Satan created science.

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
gee a second negative claim

you don't know when to give up do you?

and how do you know this (without approaching issues of faith)?
(simple answer please)
”
How do I know that just because we don't know something is not a reason to insist god did it?

First of all explain how you know this

None of which, in any way, suggests the presence of a universal god. Simple really.

If you can't comprehent this simple statement, you should just give up now.

do you understand the differences between these two statements?

1. I don't know something
2. You don't know something

 

[S.A.M.]

We're in sci forums, trying to analyze why some people take the completely irrational belief train to ignorance. It's a scientific endeavor.

Hmm then you ought to know that theism and atheism are not falsifiable and are not testable hypotheses.

example: everyone believes their perceptions are true. Why, its a mystery, since simple rudimentary tests have proven that perceptions are almost always biased. Does this knowledge affect your perceptions?

 

[(Q)]

do you understand the differences between these two statements?

1. I don't know something
2. You don't know something

3. I know something you don't know.

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
let me bold the important bits for you (after all I didn't provide the cover of the book for you to focus your supernatural powers on)

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.
”
Wow. That clinches it. God exists. I'll now start capitalizing the "G" in God.

Scratch your nose if it also makes you feel better

in the meantime it might pay to be familiar with a series of writings before you boldly stomp forth and declare what they do and don't contain

Nothing in your precious writings points to a single way to test or observe this god they all speak of. You yourself know this. Therefore, unsupported rhetoric. QED.

“
fools also have many opportunities for laughter

”
Self realization is a good thing. I'm glad you've come to it.

Better than making friendships with permissive pharmacists

 

[lightgigantic]

3. I know something you don't know.

fine

 

[(Q)]

Hmm then you ought to know that theism and atheism are not falsifiable and are not testable hypotheses.

They are not hypotheses at all. One expounds unsubstantiated claims while the other does not, in that order.

 

[lightgigantic]

We're in sci forums, trying to analyze why some people take the completely irrational belief train to ignorance. It's a scientific endeavor.

gee a third negative claim ... and you still haven't dealt with the issues of your first one

 

[S.A.M.]

They are not hypotheses at all. One expounds unsubstantiated claims while the other does not, in that order.

H[sub]0[/sub]: there is no God
H[sub]a[/sub]: there is a God

Prove it

 

[superluminal]

Supe

First of all explain how you know this

None of which, in any way, suggests the presence of a universal god. Simple really.

Thi is a methodological stance, not an attribute. Statements were made like "The universe is big, it's soo complicated, We don't understand quantum mechanics, life is cool..." followed by "therefore I beleive in god".

Surely you see the absurdity of this? In a world where virtually every natural phenomenon we've investigated has yielded substantially to our investigations, it's a completely worthless assertion to say "god did it".

Just remember. Your god(s) have the awesome attribute that they cannot be:

- observed
- tested
- investigated
- validated
- invalidated

Now that's omnipotent.

do you understand the differences between these two statements?

1. I don't know something
2. You don't know something

Nope. I'm challenged.

 

[superluminal]

Hmm then you ought to know that theism and atheism are not falsifiable and are not testable hypotheses.

Bullcrap. Theism by definition is not testable in any way. Atheism is fully falsifiable. Show me your god and we give. You win. Easy.