Actually, 'atheism' has NO 'ethos' because they are
firm believers of the existence of nothing accidentally
becoming something with the absence of God or a creator.


'ethos' of Evolutionary Crap-Shoot Theory = Idiocy



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, 'atheism' has NO 'ethos'

This is correct. Atheism cannot have an ethos since atheism only relates to whether God exists or not.

> because they are
> firm believers of the existence of nothing
> accidentally
> becoming something with the absence of God or a
> creator.

This, however, isn't correct.

I'm an atheist and I don't think 'nothing' became 'something'.

Then WHAT, became WHAT in your opinion?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then WHAT, became WHAT in your opinion?


I subscribe to the b theory of time, which means, everything that was, is, and will be *always* is. Meaning, there was never a moment when the universe wasn't.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they are
> firm believers of the existence of nothing
> accidentally
> becoming something with the absence of God or a
> creator.


I'm an atheist and I don't believe that either. In fact, I don't know of any atheists that believe that something came from nothing.

Creationists however, DO believe that God (something) came from nothing.

They're the first to state that atheists believe that something came from nothing and that it's simply not possible. Then, in the next sentence imply that God came from nothing or that God has been around for infinity. Then they'll claim that infinity is not possible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2010 03:39PM by Numbers.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am not assuming that. Stalin used atheism to
> > control the population. He viewed religion as
> > counter to his ideal communist society.
> Atheism
> > was not only the preferred ethos, it was the
> > imposed one. It was taught in schools. There
> was
> > numerous anti-religious propoganda. And, as
> > mentioned earlier, the execution of religious
> > leaders. Atheism was an integral part of the
> > Stalin regime and mandated upon the population.
>
>
> What is the 'ethos' of atheism?

It is a loose set of guiding principles held by most atheists I have encountered. It is a sentiment that informs their beliefs.

> You are avoiding the question and I think you know
> it.

Nah, you are simply ignoring the answer you don't like or want to see.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I am not assuming that. Stalin used atheism
> to
> > > control the population. He viewed religion
> as
> > > counter to his ideal communist society.
> > Atheism
> > > was not only the preferred ethos, it was the
> > > imposed one. It was taught in schools.
> There
> > was
> > > numerous anti-religious propoganda. And, as
> > > mentioned earlier, the execution of religious
> > > leaders. Atheism was an integral part of the
> > > Stalin regime and mandated upon the
> population.
> >
> >
> > What is the 'ethos' of atheism?
>
> It is a loose set of guiding principles held by
> most atheists I have encountered. It is a
> sentiment that informs their beliefs.

So what is this set of 'guiding principles'? Also, 'most atheists' does not equal 'all atheists'. In order to substantiate the claim that Stalin killed in the name of atheism, you need guiding principles that apply to all atheists.


> > You are avoiding the question and I think you
> know
> > it.
>
> Nah, you are simply ignoring the answer you don't
> like or want to see.

Not at all. Even if you were correct, it wouldn't mean that atheism is not true.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So what is this set of 'guiding principles'?
> Also, 'most atheists' does not equal 'all
> atheists'. In order to substantiate the claim that
> Stalin killed in the name of atheism, you need
> guiding principles that apply to all atheists.


That is simply foolish. Why are you rewriting history?

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So what is this set of 'guiding principles'?
> > Also, 'most atheists' does not equal 'all
> > atheists'. In order to substantiate the claim
> that
> > Stalin killed in the name of atheism, you need
> > guiding principles that apply to all atheists.
>
>
> That is simply foolish. Why are you rewriting
> history?


Why are you avoiding the question?

I'll repeat: So what is this set of 'guiding principles'? Also, 'most atheists' does not equal 'all atheists'. In order to substantiate the claim that Stalin killed in the name of atheism, you need guiding principles that apply to all atheists.

Pangloss wrote:
>"I subscribe to the b theory of time,"

TIME NEEDS A BEGINING

>"which means, everything that was, is, and will be *always* is."

You believe in infinite existence of matter, meaning there has
to be an infinite creator. NOTHING JUST *IS*

and this is an example of incredibly juvenile logic.

> "Meaning, there was never a moment when the universe wasn't."

WRONG! Decomposition of matter and loss of energy proves that
the iniverse is not some stagnant lifeless object that just is.

Another huge problem with the athiest is their willingness to
attribute all the balances and things that need to be just right
to happen-chance just *is* logic. A simpleton's approach.

Not to mention we can't define forever scientifically because we
can't test forever in a lab nor can we experience it. So you as
a scientist are using an ideology that can not be proven -to prove
your theory.

Not to mention; infinite existance of matter does NOT explain
the wonders of life and our physical existence, only an infinite
creator can do that.



.
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll repeat: So what is this set of 'guiding
> principles'?

It usually takes the form of not merely the non-belief in a deity, but pure disdain for the belief in a deity and those that believe.

> Also, 'most atheists' does not equal
> 'all atheists'. In order to substantiate the claim
> that Stalin killed in the name of atheism, you
> need guiding principles that apply to all
> atheists.

You actually don't. There are plenty of Muslims that kill in the name of Islam by applying their own interpretation of their guiding principles. Likewise for Christianity.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >"I subscribe to the b theory of time,
>
> TIME NEEDS A BEGINING

Not on the B theory and maybe not even on the a theory.

> >which means, everything that was, is, and will be
> *always* is.
>
> You believe in infinite existence of matter,
> meaning there has

Not precisely. It's not 'infinite', it's quite finite. It is just eternal. Think of the cosmos (past, present, future) as a ball. The 'ball' is finite. It's duration is eternal.

> to be an infinite creator. NOTHING JUST *IS*
> and this is an example of incredibly juvenile
> logic.

You've just contradicted yourself. If 'nothing' just *is*, then neither is an 'infinite creator'.

As for 'juvenile logic', I was wondering when your ability to reasonably discuss the matter would break down. The fact is, the majority of philosophers and people familiar with the ontology of time accept the b theory.

>
> > Meaning, there was never a moment when the
> universe wasn't.
>
> WRONG! Decomposition of matter and loss of
> energy proves that
> the iniverse is not some stagnant lifeless object
> that just is.

You are assuming the 'a theory' here. You are assuming that this loss of energy (which isn't actually *lost*, it is simply spread out) indicates that it disappears. This isn't necessarily the case. Even on the a theory, the energy doesn't get 'lost' it simply spreads out until it stops 'moving', basically.

> Another huge problem with the athiest is their
> willingness to
> attribute all the balances and things that need to
> be just right
> to happen-chance just *is* logic. A simpleton's
> approach.

This appeal to the anthropic principle begs another set of questions. Just because you can envision the constants of the universe as different, doesn't mean they actually could be. This is something you'd have to demonstrate, not simply assume.

> Not to mention we can't define forever
> scientifically because we
> can't test forever in a lab nor can we experience
> it. So you as
> a scientist are using an ideology that can not be
> proven -to prove
> your theory.

?

The b theory is an interpretation of relativity. It is a metaphysical theory, not a scientific theory.

It makes more sense out of relativity then the a theory. On the a theory, simultaneous presents aren't satisfactorily explained. How do you explain it? The B theory explains it since time is similar to a 'direction'. Therefor we can reasonably accept the b theory, since it explains more.

> Not to mention; infinite existance of matter does
> NOT explain
> the wonders of life and our physical existence,

It is not meant to explain the wonders of life, just like heliocentricism doesn't. This is a strawman.

> only an infinite
> creator can do that.

Really?

How is that? Please explain.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I'll repeat: So what is this set of 'guiding
> > principles'?
>
> It usually takes the form of not merely the
> non-belief in a deity, but pure disdain for the
> belief in a deity and those that believe.

How is 'pure disdain for the belief in a deity and those who believe' able to be justified through atheism? It isn't. Where is the connection? The premises do not justify this conclusion.

This is a non sequitur. You are confusing what some atheists believe with a worldview of atheism. In short, this is bias talking, not reason.

> > Also, 'most atheists' does not equal
> > 'all atheists'. In order to substantiate the
> claim
> > that Stalin killed in the name of atheism, you
> > need guiding principles that apply to all
> > atheists.
>
> You actually don't.

If you wish to be reasonable, you do.

> There are plenty of Muslims
> that kill in the name of Islam by applying their
> own interpretation of their guiding principles.
> Likewise for Christianity.

I completely agree - since both those religions are worldviews WITH guiding principles. Theism and Atheism are not worldviews and do not have guiding principles.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> How is 'pure disdain for the belief in a deity and
> those who believe' able to be justified through
> atheism? It isn't. Where is the connection? The
> premises do not justify this conclusion.

It regularly is.

> This is a non sequitur. You are confusing what
> some atheists believe with a worldview of atheism.
> In short, this is bias talking, not reason.

When did I mention worldview?

> > > Also, 'most atheists' does not equal
> > > 'all atheists'. In order to substantiate the
> > claim
> > > that Stalin killed in the name of atheism,
> you
> > > need guiding principles that apply to all
> > > atheists.
> >
> > You actually don't.
>
> If you wish to be reasonable, you do.

No, you don't. Especially if you want to be reasonable.

> > There are plenty of Muslims
> > that kill in the name of Islam by applying
> their
> > own interpretation of their guiding principles.
>
> > Likewise for Christianity.
>
> I completely agree - since both those religions
> are worldviews WITH guiding principles. Theism
> and Atheism are not worldviews and do not have
> guiding principles.

So, no atheist can have a guiding principle based upon his/her non-belief? Sort of sell atheists short on that one.

Pangloss wrote:
>"You've just contradicted yourself. If 'nothing' just *is*,
then neither is an 'infinite creator'."

On the contrary, you contradict YOUR own theory with this idea.

A spirit that existed before time and that IS the creator of time
and space, would be outside the scope of justification by your reasoning
using time as a measurement. Because only finite things like humans
use the concept or idea of 'time' measurement, meaning that God
needs no begining as far as time goes and has no end.

aka; God = Infinite.

You admitting that YOU think matter is ifinite is a HUGE flaw in your
reasoning ability, being that you have no real logical reason why
you think everything just *is*.

More so than that, you admit to matter being infinite, or at least
to our perception and current understanding. Using your logic, then
so is our conciousness or our souls.

Matter is not infinte because it needs to be created.
Thermodynamics and Ontology prove this.


.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

lmao, I love how one simple ass little pic I posted started allllllll this bullshit.

Devil's Reject Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lmao, I love how one simple ass little pic I
> posted started allllllll this bullshit.


im glad you are starting to understand the concept behind posting things worthy of discussion.

Devil's Reject Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lmao, I love how one simple ass little pic I
> posted started allllllll this bullshit.


All this? This is a discussion forum. Would you rather post a silly picture and have no one respond? What would be the point?

bloody blisters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Devil's Reject Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lmao, I love how one simple ass little pic I
> > posted started allllllll this bullshit.
>
>
> im glad you are starting to understand the concept
> behind posting things worthy of discussion.


I'm glad also!!!!!!?

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Devil's Reject Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > lmao, I love how one simple ass little pic I
> > posted started allllllll this bullshit.
>
>
> All this? This is a discussion forum. Would you
> rather post a silly picture and have no one
> respond? What would be the point?


Yes, all this. And meh, doesn't matter either way, I suppose

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss wrote:
> >"You've just contradicted yourself. If 'nothing'
> just *is*,
> then neither is an 'infinite creator'."
>
> On the contrary, you contradict YOUR own theory
> with this idea.

Which 'theory' is *my* theory?

> A spirit that existed before time and that IS the
> creator of time
> and space, would be outside the scope of
> justification by your reasoning
> using time as a measurement.

"Before" time involves time - you can't say something existed prior to time since you have to presuppose time in order to be prior to.

In short, it's a contradiction in terms.

> Because only finite
> things like humans
> use the concept or idea of 'time' measurement,
> meaning that God
> needs no begining as far as time goes and has no
> end.
>
> aka; God = Infinite.

This is called special pleading.

> You admitting that YOU think matter is ifinite is
> a HUGE flaw in your
> reasoning ability, being that you have no real
> logical reason why
> you think everything just *is*.

I admit that matter is eternal, not infinite. There is not an infinite amount of matter. You are creating strawmen.

> More so than that, you admit to matter being
> infinite, or at least
> to our perception and current understanding.
> Using your logic, then
> so is our conciousness or our souls.

"Souls", "Spiritual", etc are empty terms - they are meaningless. If you think otherwise, then please tell me what they are supposed to be. Keep in mind, telling me what they are not (ie, not material) is *NOT* the same thing as telling me what they are.

> Matter is not infinte because it needs to be
> created.
> Thermodynamics and Ontology prove this.

This begs several questions. Thermodynamics does not prove it - it only shows that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Ontology is not a 'proof', it is a field of metaphysics, so it's entirely unclear what you are referring to here.

Here is my question for Pangloss and Numbers. From my understanding, you both claim to be an atheist/agnostic. Numbers admits that he goes to church all the time and most people there he feels are just delusional/brainwashed, but still benevolent. Pangloss thinks all just is. This is my take so far (I may be oversimplifying).

My question is - If I believe that there is a literal God, a literal heaven and hell and that if I, or others, refuse to accept God and his Son, Jesus, as the way to heaven, then I, or others will be condemned to an eternity in hell. If at the end of my life I am wrong, then at the worst, I lived a delusional/benevolent life and everything that is, still is. No harm done, at the most, I lived what would be considered a boring life. BUT, what if either of you is wrong?

So,,,, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is my question for Pangloss and Numbers.
> From my understanding, you both claim to be an
> atheist/agnostic.

Basically - my position is a touch more nuanced. I'm an ignostic atheist for the most part.

> Numbers admits that he goes to
> church all the time and most people there he feels
> are just delusional/brainwashed, but still
> benevolent. Pangloss thinks all just is. This is
> my take so far (I may be oversimplifying).

Fair enough.

> My question is - If I believe that there is a
> literal God, a literal heaven and hell and that if
> I, or others, refuse to accept God and his Son,
> Jesus, as the way to heaven, then I, or others
> will be condemned to an eternity in hell. If at
> the end of my life I am wrong, then at the worst,
> I lived a delusional/benevolent life and
> everything that is, still is. No harm done, at
> the most, I lived what would be considered a
> boring life. BUT, what if either of you is wrong?

Actually this isn't true - what if we are both wrong and the Egyptian afterlife is correct? Then we would both be weighed against Ma'at and then destroyed for our transgressions.

Conversely if Islam is true, then while we might suffer in hell for a period, we would eventually go up to heaven.

If Zoroastrianism is true, then both you and I will be destroyed for working with Ahiriman.

Heck, if Christianity is true, then supposedly your God is omniscient and would be willing to see through my 'ruse' of 'hedging my bets' and I'd still go to hell anyway.

In the meantime I would have wasted this life trying to serve a deity that didn't exist. My focus would shift from *this* life to the next and I would have squandered my life.

So,,,, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is my question for Pangloss and Numbers.
> From my understanding, you both claim to be an
> atheist/agnostic. Numbers admits that he goes to
> church all the time and most people there he feels
> are just delusional/brainwashed, but still
> benevolent. Pangloss thinks all just is. This is
> my take so far (I may be oversimplifying).
>
> My question is - If I believe that there is a
> literal God, a literal heaven and hell and that if
> I, or others, refuse to accept God and his Son,
> Jesus, as the way to heaven, then I, or others
> will be condemned to an eternity in hell. If at
> the end of my life I am wrong, then at the worst,
> I lived a delusional/benevolent life and
> everything that is, still is. No harm done, at
> the most, I lived what would be considered a
> boring life. BUT, what if either of you is wrong?


If the God of the Bible exists, He would know my belief in Him is false and I would still go to Hell. So, what's your point?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Pangloss answered this question similarly to how I would have, but I'll add that it's impossible to lie to yourself. Without some basis of logic, evidence, reason and motivation, I can't just tell myself to believe in something just because someone or an unaccredited book tells me to. I approach this like everything else in my life. I look at both sides and decide which is more or less credible and go from there.

In my opinion, there is little or no credibility where religions are concerned. In fact, it's one of the least credible subjects, especially for such an incredible claim.

My life has been anything but boring and anyone who sits around waiting for an afterlife is simply wasting resources here in this world. If there's a God, and he/she is good, he'll take EVERYONE to a better place. After all, people here on Earth are simply "victims" of their social environment and parental upbringing. Even Hitler was a normal person for a while before some wrong turn or event changed him (possibly WWI).

If there is a God and it turns out to be the Old Testament version, then we're all fucked. I want no part of that crazy idiot and since I'm not Jewish, I'd be fucked anyway.

WTL, my point was simply that if I was wrong, the consequences for me wouldn't be as dire as they would be if either of them were wrong. Pangloss' response actually brought a little smile to my face at the end.

Pagloss wrote:
>"Which 'theory' is *my* theory?"

YOU said "A"-theory was *your* theory.
It stands for 'Asswipe' theory by the way.

>"Thermodynamics does not prove it - it only shows
that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Ontology
is not a 'proof',

BS it Thermodynamics does more than just this, but thanks
for reminding us about this also.

>"Ontology is not a 'proof', it is a field of metaphysics,

Thanks for the clarification as to what Ontology is, oh and
speaking of stawman arguments, you provided a good example of
one by saying this.

>"so it's entirely unclear what you are referring to here."

Unclear to YOU, onlt because you are OBVIOUSLY too stupid to
understand plain english.



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

So,,,, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL, my point was simply that if I was wrong, the
> consequences for me wouldn't be as dire as they
> would be if either of them were wrong. Pangloss'
> response actually brought a little smile to my
> face at the end.


Actually my point was that if you were wrong, the consequences could be *JUST AS* dire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pagloss wrote:
> >"Which 'theory' is *my* theory?"
>
> YOU said A-theory was *your* theory.
> It stands for 'Asswipe' theory by the way.

I do not support the a theory of time. I'm a proponent of the b theory - I've said this several times.

> >"Thermodynamics does not prove it - it only shows
>
> that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
> Ontology
> is not a 'proof',
>
> BS it Thermodynamics does more than just this, but
> thanks
> for reminding us about this also.

This seems largely to miss the point. My point is that it doesn't support your contention.

> >"Ontology is not a 'proof', it is a field of
> metaphysics,
>
> Thanks for the clarification as to what Ontology
> is, oh and
> speaking of stawman arguments, you provided a good
> example of
> one by saying this.

?

How so?

You said that ontology provided proof - I pointed out that ontology is a field in metaphysics. Now you are suggesting this is a strawman?

> >"so it's entirely unclear what you are referring
> to here."
>
> Unclear to YOU, onlt because you are OBVIOUSLY too
> stupid to
> understand plain english.


Sure, Troll, sure.

Why don't you explain it to us then?

I also appreciate the fact that you ignored the rest of my rebuttals. There seems to be little point in trying to address these topics with you. You get flustered and you don't seem to understand what we are talking about. That then leads you to being insulting and it also leads you to ignore substantial points. Such as when I asked you to define 'spiritual'. Or when I pointed out the contradiction in your position of 'before time'.

Honestly, I don't see much point in discussing this with you. You can't even keep straight what position I'm arguing.

Really?

The consequences for even a misguided Muslim, would be
just as dire as one who preached against all religion and
denied the existence of God? And also one who made it their
objective to bring others down that dark lonely path?

That's funny.



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Oops Pangloss,

I meant to say you said you subscribe to 'B' theory.

Still, 'B' stands for Bombastic-Idiot Theory.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

>"This seems largely to miss the point.
>My point is that it doesn't support your contention."

Sorry but that's just the thing, YOU HAVE NO POINT!

And you know it supports my contention, that's why you
didn't refute what I said with WHY you believe it does
not support my contension.



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really?
>
> The consequences for even a misguided Muslim,
> would be just as dire
> as one who preached against all religion and
> denied the existence of God?
> And also one who made it their objective to bring
> others down that
> dark lonely path?
>
> That's funny.

In some religions, yes, actually. It wouldn't matter what you preached or believed if the Ancient Egyptians were correct. If you didn't know the proper incantations, you would be screwed.

Your strawman is noted though.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oops Pangloss,
>
> I meant to say you said you subscribe to 'B'
> theory.
>
> Still, 'B' stands for Bombastic-Idiot Theory.
>
>
> .

Sure you did. The fact is, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >"This seems largely to miss the point.
> >My point is that it doesn't support your
> contention."
>
> Sorry but that's just the thing, YOU HAVE NO
> POINT!
>
> And you know it supports my contention, that's why
> you
> didn't refute what I said with WHY you believe it
> does
> not support my contension.
>
>
>
> .

More evidence - you can't seem to keep up.

This is a waste of my time. Enjoy the last word, I'm done discussing this with you.

Such as when I asked you to define 'spiritual'. Or when
I pointed out the contradiction in your position of 'before time'.

These are substantial points???

Who cares what I believe a soul is.
It is an intangible item like gravity.

Also. I'm not sure why you would fixate on 'Before time'
because you know what the words mean.

SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE STARTING TO GIVE UP.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

So,,,, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL, my point was simply that if I was wrong, the
> consequences for me wouldn't be as dire as they
> would be if either of them were wrong. Pangloss'
> response actually brought a little smile to my
> face at the end.


No. If you were wrong, you've wasted a lot of your one chance at existence doing things you don't want or need to do to appease something that isn't there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

pangloss wrote:
>Your strawman is noted though.

Stop repetitively using a term you don't even know
how to properly apply, just makes you look dumb.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Such as when I asked you to define 'spiritual'. Or
> when
> I pointed out the contradiction in your position
> of 'before time'.
>
> These are substantial points???
>
> Who cares what I believe a soul is.
> It is an intangible item like gravity.
>
> Also. I'm not sure why you would fixate on 'Before
> time'
> because you know what the words mean.
>
> SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE STARTING TO GIVE UP.

*Sigh*

I'm going to take my own advice:

Never argue with stupid people. They only drag you down to their level and beat you through experience.

Your points have been refuted. You, obviously, aren't interested in the technical merits of your position. What you are interested in is trying to insult me (and others) out of the discussion.

It's the type of thing elementary school kids do. There is nothing to be learned from you, no idea to be gleamed, no refutation or rebuttal to be offered.

It is simply a waste of time. So I'm done with trying to reason with you. It's useless anyway - it's not like you can even recognize when your position has been refuted. Not that you'd care anyway. You are happy with your irrational position. Your *point* is not to show your beliefs are reasonable, your point is to have an excuse to insult people.

Just like a petulant child.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pangloss wrote:
> >Your strawman is noted though.
>
> Stop reptitively using a term you don't even know
>
> how to properly apply, just makes you look dumb.
>
>
> .

Ha! This is funny, how many times have I corrected your ignorance with regards to definitions?

Yet you keep on trying. It would be cute if you weren't an adult. It's just sad, since you are.

Troll@AOL's biggest problem is he tries to use reason and rational thought to make an argument that can't be supported by reason or rational thought. To believe in God is to suspend disbelief. Put it on "faith," but don't try to use science or reason to explain God, because it simply won't work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WTL wrote:
>"No. If you were wrong, you've wasted a lot of your one chance at
existence doing things you don't want or need to do to appease
something that isn't there."

Here in lies the basis for 'atheism', those who morally do
wrong or evil things like child molestation or murder and comfort
themselves by lying to themselves about having to answer for their
actions to boost their confidence in their perverted life and lifestyle.

PRETTY PATHETIC.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll@AOL's biggest problem is he tries to use
> reason and rational thought to make an argument
> that can't be supported by reason or rational
> thought. To believe in God is to suspend
> disbelief. Put it on "faith," but don't try to use
> science or reason to explain God, because it
> simply won't work.


Fair enough. I see him *try* to make a rational point and when it's easily refuted he reverts back to name calling and insults. It's like he's trying to discuss these topics with adults and just doesn't know how.

I wish he'd just leave these threads and let the adults speak.

STFU Insult-Gloss.

We know you aint got shit to say.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> STFU Insult-Gloss.
>
> We know you aint got shit to say.

I don't think you are in a position to judge.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WTL wrote:
> >"No. If you were wrong, you've wasted a lot of
> your one chance at
> existence doing things you don't want or need to
> do to appease
> something that isn't there."
>
> Here in lies the basis for 'atheism', those who
> morally do
> wrong or evil things like child molestation or
> murder and comfort
> themselves by lying to themselves about having to
> answer for their
> actions to boost their confidence in their
> perverted life and lifestyle.
>
> PRETTY PATHETIC.
>
>
> .


I'm probably the most moral person you will ever meet. I'm talking about living with the false burden of an all knowing, all seeing, all judging God that doesn't actually exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Why is it a 'burden' to you?

You have been informed.
You don't believe.

Okay.

But then you should not be so willing take on the burden
of trying to misguide others when you have no logical reasoning
for your unsubstantiated sensationalistic fallacies.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

WTL, at no point did I say my life was a burden or that I was doing things that I don't want to do. I merely said my life would prob. seem boring to some. I spend most of my free time riding motorcycles, playing sports or watching my daughter grow and learn, that doesn't feel like a burden to me. I was just asking a question and I got a response. I wasn't trying to make a judgement against Pangloss or Numbers and don't feel as though I did.

So,,,, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I spend most of my free time riding
> motorcycles, playing sports or watching my
> daughter grow and learn, that doesn't feel like a
> burden to me.

May I ask if you're giving your daughter a chance to learn both sides of this issue and let her decide which way is best or are you imploring her to be a Christian. If the latter is true, than she will follow the age old pattern fearful and guilt ridden religious indoctrination.

If someone explores both sides in an honest fashion and still decides to be religious, it's okay. I just think every person deserves a chance to explore both sides without pressure or family guilt (see Westboro daughter thread).



I was just asking a question and I
> got a response. I wasn't trying to make a
> judgement against Pangloss or Numbers and don't
> feel as though I did.


I took no offense to your question, as it is one of the more frequent I receive. We know we exist right here, right now. We honestly have no idea what, if anything happens to us after we die, so why not make the best of what we have now. I feel so fortunate to have been born in a free country, with abundant food resources and ways to educate myself, that to not make the best of it is pathetic. Think of how sad and awful it would be to grow up in a Theocratic society.

I've done everything I ever wanted to do as a child and then some and could tell you some stories....but I won't :) Before I die, I would love to see the Earth from space, but even if I don't, it was a heck of a ride.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2010 12:03PM by Numbers.

My daughter is only a year and a half old so currently it is a moot point. She will be free to make her own decisions when she is older, just as I was. That Westboro church type stuff does NOT in any way represent me. They are cults.

And the the Westboro Baptist Church story was about
a girl that went against her family bond because
she recognises fuckminded stupidity when she sees it.

By the way Numbers, where the fuck have you been?
NOBODY is promoting a 'theocratic' government!

How the fuck do you come up with such nonsense?


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

This just in..

Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

Stephen has already stated his strong disbelief in God, so I'm
sure I'll read nothing surprising but I'll take a look @ your
article anyways.

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

In an article from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

Stephen Hawking states :
>"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can
> and will create itself from nothing."

What a bomastic unsubstantiated assertion!
Yeah Stephen, you really CON-Vinced me with that one.

>"He added: 'It is not necessary to invoke God to light
> the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.'"

I assume 'touch' meant "torch", and that is ALOT of stuff to
accomplish and deny God @the same time with NO
RATIONAL justification.


>"The question is :
> is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we
> can't understand,"

YES

>"or was it determined by a law of science?"

BOTH.

***Law Maker = God***

Understand that equation, mathboy?

>"I believe the second."

GOOD FOR YOU!

> "If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God',
> but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet,
> and ask questions."

REALLY?

Thanks for the info, oh omnipotent-'genius' one.



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

dc2187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This just in..
>
> Stephen Hawking: God was not needed to create the
> Universe
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/79
> 76594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create
> -the-Universe.html


I'll have to read his book - but the reporter's quote seems to be a non sequitur.

That's great, you learned the definition of 'non sequitur'.
Now GIVE US A BREAK, stop using it already doof.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's great, you learned the definition of 'non
> sequitur'.
> Now GIVE US A BREAK, stop using it already doof.
>
>
> .


I take it that you don't know what that means, do you?

In any event, it's not worth my time explaining it to you. It is worth my time explaining to you how worthless discussing anything is with you though. ;-)

*sigh*

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers, don't you think it's a little odd that you go to church on a regular basis yet claim to be a atheist?

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it a 'burden' to you?
>
> You have been informed.
> You don't believe.
>
> Okay.
>
> But then you should not be so willing take on the
> burden
> of trying to misguide others when you have no
> logical reasoning
> for your unsubstantiated sensationalistic
> fallacies.
>
>
> .

Logic would indicate that there is no God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stephen has already stated his strong disbelief in
> God, so I'm
> sure I'll read nothing surprising but I'll take a
> look @ your
> article anyways.
>
> .


He emphatically says he doesn't believe in a a personal "God" and if you would like to call anything "God," it would be the laws of physics.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2010 01:29PM by WashingTone-Locian.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers, don't you think it's a little odd that
> you go to church on a regular basis yet claim to
> be a atheist?


I would assume that Numbers is married and wants to keep his wife happy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Washingtone-Locian worte:
>"He emphatically says he doesn't believe in a a personal 'God'
and if you would like to call anything 'God,' it would be the
laws of physics."

Well, I emphatically say; that's just stupid, WTL.

Groundless & STUPID.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Question about the Stephen Hawking statement, if he wasn't confined to a wheelchair and didn't have such a disfigurement, would he be an atheist?

I don't think so, I have found most atheists have had something traumatic happen to them or have seen something horrible, and think to themselves "If God existed, how could this happen?"

If Hawking wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't need a text to speech program to give lectures, he wouldn't be an atheist. Guaranteed.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question about the Stephen Hawking statement, if
> he wasn't confined to a wheelchair and didn't have
> such a disfigurement, would he be an atheist?
>
> I don't think so, I have found most atheists have
> had something traumatic happen to them or have
> seen something horrible, and think to themselves
> "If God existed, how could this happen?"
>
> If Hawking wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't need
> a text to speech program to give lectures, he
> wouldn't be an atheist. Guaranteed.

There are lots of able-bodied atheists walking around. I would say it's probably a non-factor, because I have seen just as many people who have "found God" after being traumatized.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Numbers, don't you think it's a little odd that
> > you go to church on a regular basis yet claim
> to
> > be a atheist?
>
>
> I would assume that Numbers is married and wants
> to keep his wife happy.

That indicates a lack of strength in both will and mind. For someone so happy believing in nothing, why spend precious weekend time in a place of religious worship. Anyone attending religious services to make their spouse happy is even more foolish than the believing spouse.

Wow, gonna throw my unwlecomed 2 cents in

God doesnt need your faith, or lack thereof to exist.

Science cannot prove or disprove God, God set it up that way. Simple terms,.
The prime dirrective, hands off so to speak, God made it that way, so argue all you want, your gonna find out the instant you die.

I personally beleive. I have my own reasons, I am too lazy to fight, type and dont have time, yes Im a sinner. I have issues, I like to drink, I got some before I married, I have made and still make poor choices, like posting here.
Still im trying to do better, I didnt have faith when I was younger, getting stronger now that I am older. Ive a long way to go.

Evil is out there, how can it not be?. Tough one to prove,

Time will tell who is right, if your in doubt, keep your eyes on world events and Israel.


If you have never been in a state of Grace, your blind, God isnt using the old Test now, its all New test, I could be wrong, im not an expert, But He did send his son, He, God became man on the cross and beared the worlds sin, he made a way for you to gain entrance, you gotta meet him 1/2 way and you gotta beleive, you have a choice, thats the difference, you do have free will,

sounds resonable to me. 2000 yrs ago give take


He made himself known, Sounds like something a True Real Deiety would do
He gave us a way to live by, Do on to others, as you would have then do onto you

Again Sounds more that reasonable, Meet God 1/2 way with a true heart of repentance, and he will show you.

Keep living ouside of grace, and you will die Bitter,and suffer.

IMHO we do live in the time of Reprobate minds, hell look at the news day in day out, Sick craps getting worse and worse, What was good is now bad and what was bad is now good

I wont argue, Im not smart enough, I do know what love is, a what isnt, So I like to think,

Dont argue, just think.

There are plenty of former Christians who have been in that "state of Grace" you talk about. Going along with "group think" isn't the path to salvation. I'm sure lots of the folks at Jonestown thought they were in a "state of Grace" when they were drinking the Kool-Aid. As were the folks involved with Heaven's Gate.

"State of Grace" is a state of mind. People were just as euphoric when meeting Elvis, Michael Jackson and Hitler in person. It didn't make those people God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Numbers, don't you think it's a little odd that
> > you go to church on a regular basis yet claim
> to
> > be a atheist?
>
>
> I would assume that Numbers is married and wants
> to keep his wife happy.


That or he's like Robert Price, who likes the ceremony.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are plenty of former Christians who have
> been in that "state of Grace" you talk about.
> Going along with "group think" isn't the path to
> salvation. I'm sure lots of the folks at Jonestown
> thought they were in a "state of Grace" when they
> were drinking the Kool-Aid. As were the folks
> involved with Heaven's Gate.

They drank Favor Aid. Stop giving my product a bad name!!!!!! Oh yeah!!!!

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question about the Stephen Hawking statement, if
> he wasn't confined to a wheelchair and didn't have
> such a disfigurement, would he be an atheist?
>
> I don't think so, I have found most atheists have
> had something traumatic happen to them or have
> seen something horrible, and think to themselves
> "If God existed, how could this happen?"

While that may be the case with some, it definitely isn't the case with all. I've had a fairly easy life. My moment of clarity came when I decided to look into some claims about the Christian religion (which I subscribed to). I found that I couldn't defend them and that led me to several months of research and praying. At the end, I could no longer force myself to believe.

> If Hawking wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't need
> a text to speech program to give lectures, he
> wouldn't be an atheist. Guaranteed.

Not at all - this is simply an assumption.

Kool Aid Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There are plenty of former Christians who have
> > been in that "state of Grace" you talk about.
> > Going along with "group think" isn't the path
> to
> > salvation. I'm sure lots of the folks at
> Jonestown
> > thought they were in a "state of Grace" when
> they
> > were drinking the Kool-Aid. As were the folks
> > involved with Heaven's Gate.
>
> They drank Favor Aid. Stop giving my product a
> bad name!!!!!! Oh yeah!!!!

But the fucker said "Kool Aid!" Talk about a bad product endorsement. He didn't even get the product's name right!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> While that may be the case with some, it
> definitely isn't the case with all. I've had a
> fairly easy life. My moment of clarity came when I
> decided to look into some claims about the
> Christian religion (which I subscribed to). I
> found that I couldn't defend them and that led me
> to several months of research and praying. At the
> end, I could no longer force myself to believe.
>

Same thing for me. I used to pity people who didn't believe. Then, after spending three or four years soul searching and doing research, I came to the same conclusions. I was afraid of not believing. I was afraid of feeling dark and empty inside. Instead, I realized I had been blind all along. I have a greater appreciation for the world and people now because of the change.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

spanky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, gonna throw my unwlecomed 2 cents in
>
> God doesnt need your faith, or lack thereof to
> exist.
>
> Science cannot prove or disprove God, God set it
> up that way. Simple terms,.
> The prime dirrective, hands off so to speak, God
> made it that way, so argue all you want, your
> gonna find out the instant you die.

Science is not about proof or disproof, it is about inductive and abductive reasoning.

> I personally beleive. I have my own reasons, I am
> too lazy to fight, type and dont have time, yes Im
> a sinner. I have issues, I like to drink, I got
> some before I married, I have made and still make
> poor choices, like posting here.
> Still im trying to do better, I didnt have faith
> when I was younger, getting stronger now that I am
> older. Ive a long way to go.
>
> Evil is out there, how can it not be?. Tough one
> to prove,
>
> Time will tell who is right, if your in doubt,
> keep your eyes on world events and Israel.
>
>
> If you have never been in a state of Grace, your
> blind, God isnt using the old Test now, its all
> New test, I could be wrong, im not an expert, But
> He did send his son, He, God became man on the
> cross and beared the worlds sin, he made a way for
> you to gain entrance, you gotta meet him 1/2 way
> and you gotta beleive, you have a choice, thats
> the difference, you do have free will,
>
> sounds resonable to me. 2000 yrs ago give take
>
>
> He made himself known, Sounds like something a
> True Real Deiety would do
> He gave us a way to live by, Do on to others, as
> you would have then do onto you
>
> Again Sounds more that reasonable, Meet God 1/2
> way with a true heart of repentance, and he will
> show you.

Didn't work for me.

> Keep living ouside of grace, and you will die
> Bitter,and suffer.

I'm not bitter and I'm not suffering.

> IMHO we do live in the time of Reprobate minds,
> hell look at the news day in day out, Sick craps
> getting worse and worse, What was good is now bad
> and what was bad is now good

This is narrowminded thinking - so you think it's actually gotten worse? Women being treated as equals and slavery being abhorrent is *worse* to you?

There are some seriously retarded arguments going on here. One of which being an invisible entity in the sky created everything we know as reality, even if we have no idea as to the vastness of what that reality may be (speaking to the unknown dimensions of the universe).

The fact that Hawking is afflicted with a degenerative disease has made him an Atheist? So all Atheists are pissed off at "God" about something?

dc2187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are some seriously retarded arguments going
> on here. One of which being an invisible entity in
> the sky created everything we know as reality,
> even if we have no idea as to the vastness of what
> that reality may be (speaking to the unknown
> dimensions of the universe).


I'm on the same page with Hawking. I have no idea if there is a God or not. But I'm fairly certain there isn't a God as described in the Bible.

>
> The fact that Hawking is afflicted with a
> degenerative disease has made him an Atheist? So
> all Atheists are pissed off at "God" about
> something?

Yeah. Kind of like "God made me this way, so I don't believe in God." Doesn't make much sense rationally, especially coming from someone like Hawking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

dc2187 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that Hawking is afflicted with a
> degenerative disease has made him an Atheist? So
> all Atheists are pissed off at "God" about
> something?


All it is, is an inability to view another person's perspective.

It's failing Aristotle's view of an intelligent mind:

"The mark of an educated mind is that it can entertain an idea without accepting it"

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers, don't you think it's a little odd that
> you go to church on a regular basis yet claim to
> be a atheist?

It would be VERY odd if I actually went there to pray or take part in the ceremonies. I don't do either.

Eesh, you actually have it all backwards. I'm an atheist BECAUSE I have spent so much time in churches. I know things the average person in the congregation may never know. I see what goes on behind the scenes and how things work.

If by some bizarre chance there is a God and I end up in Hell, I promise you I'm see a lot of church folk when I get there, but they may be a few rings deeper in than me.