If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

There is no self that decides whether or not "you" are convinced.

Depends what you mean by automation.

Sure, Jan.

Go learn English. Automaton.

 

[Cypress]

Science is not an 'answer'! Science is not people! Courtier's fallacy. Science is not a religion or a person! Science is not a 'gain' or a 'loss'! The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science!

Someone forgot to take their medication

 

[Ross Dolan]

What's the difference?

Best way to answer that question is to look at two conditionals.

1) IF a gift-giving Santa Claus exists...what would be the evidence of that being?

2) IF a creating GOD exists...what would be the evidence of that being?


The answer for #1 would be: The "good" or "nice" children of the world would be receiving gifts and presents that could be accounted for only by having been given via an unknown source on Christmas Eve or Morning.

There is just about no indication that children anywhere are given gifts and presents. It would be a fairly easy thing to evaluate...versus gifts and presents for which a donor can be established.

The answer for two would be: A physical universe with things like galaxies, stars, planets, animals, vegetables, and minerals with an unknown source.

That is what we see every day...everywhere, all the time.

So...there is no evidence for Santa Claus (IF one exists) at all...while there is EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS as evidence of a GOD (IF a creating GOD exists.) We just do not know if a creating GOD exists...so EVERYTHING may be just something other than evidence of a creating GOD.

In any case, though, the evidence is NOT the same.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You can't understand this topic apparently. LOL. I'm so bored of anti-atheists carrying their whines to atheists and misrepresenting what atheism is. Just because you're scared of the concept.

Give me a break. So lame.

I am not scared of atheism...it is a joke to me. I tolerate it...like I tolerate a bad movie.

You are a jackass for suggesting that I do not understand this topic. In a judged debate on the subject, I would make you look like a moron.

 

[Cypress]

Science is not a college! Science is not an 'answer'! Science is not an image! Science is not a location! Science is not philosophy! Science is not a 'method' or 'procedure'!

It must be time for your lithium dose.

 

[martin]

A short little Youtube from a former evangelical pastor. Did the fire and brimstone shit for decades until he finally came to his senses. For those of you who are in denial or wish to remain willfully ignorant, he basically says this:

“Christians go in with their god as an assumption rather than a conclusion. When in fact, after close examination, the virgin birth falls apart, the resurrection falls apart, the basis of morality falls apart, the promise of afterlife fizzles into fear based marketing.”

“The gods of Islam, of Judaism, of Christianity only exist in scripture. If they actually existed, we wouldn’t need the books to claim they did. Once the book fails, the god goes with it.”

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/gI_OCjTkQG4?si=cyukCFBlj2u2kI4k

I like "after close examination". Since the usual methods of "examination" don't apply here maybe time travel took him back and he got a good look.

 

[gmark77]

I am not scared of atheism...it is a joke to me. I tolerate it...like I tolerate a bad movie.

You are a jackass for suggesting that I do not understand this topic. In a judged debate on the subject, I would make you look like a moron.

LOL. You don't understand atheism. But the worst part is that it is so drop dead simple you'd have to be pretty dim to not understand it.

I think that's your problem. You want to hold forth and express your massive intellect like Cypress does but you don't understand the topic and you look a fool to those of us who do.

And the fact that you think it is a joke is funnier than you can imagine. It means you think it is a "joke" to not simply believe someone when they make an unevidenced claim.

That's literally what you are arguing for here: you want people to believe unevidenced claims until proven otherwise.

Think it through, Festus. I'm sure with enough time you'll see how stupid that is.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. No gap. Religion is not science.

The non-overlapping magisteria idea doesn't work.

But you are right, religion is not science. Religion is based in superstition and is continually being proved wrong by science. The reverse has never happened. Religion has never proved science wrong.

 

[ZenMode]

So you insist on being illiterate here as well.

Apparently you don't know what the word illiterate means.

 

[ZenMode]

Go learn English. Automaton.

I know what automation means. As has been proven repeatedly, you often have your own definitions for words.

If you are using a standard definition for automation, yes, I would say that is an accurate description for how we we operate.

 

[Ross Dolan]

LOL. You don't understand atheism. But the worst part is that it is so drop dead simple you'd have to be pretty dim to not understand it.

I do understand atheism...and I understand that in the mid-20th century a group of debating atheists realized that defining it as it was defined at that time (a belief that no gods exist), meant that they were doing "believing" just like the theists were doing "believing"...except in a different direction.

So they decided to change the definition...and made the pretense that atheism means "a" (without) + theism (a BELIEF in a god) = without a BELIEF in a god.

But that is nonsense primarily because the word "atheist" came into the English language decades BEFORE the word "theist." It could not have come about that way.

You can check this out with almost any pre-mid century dictionary. Damn near all say the word means "a belief that there are no gods...or a belief that no gods exist.)

So take that bullshit that I do not understand the word and shove it up your ass.

I think that's your problem. You want to hold forth and express your massive intellect like Cypress does but you don't understand the topic and you look a fool to those of us who do.

You do not think...and that is your problem. But you want to suppose your nonsense is so powerful that those of us who clai you are wrong...are terrified of you.

You are a joke.

And the fact that you think it is a joke is funnier than you can imagine. It means you think it is a "joke" to not simply believe someone when they make an unevidenced claim.

Anyone who "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods IS MAKING AN UNEVIDENCED CLAIM.

And the cowardly atheists who pretend they are not doing that...are jerks.

That's literally what you are arguing for here: you want people to believe unevidenced claims until proven otherwise.

I am arguing against doing so. YOU are the one arguing that people should "believe" YOUR unevidenced claims.

Think it through, Festus. I'm sure with enough time you'll see how stupid that is.

You are a moron. And as I said earlier, in a judged debate on this issue...I would wipe you out.

 

[ZenMode]

Best way to answer that question is to look at two conditionals.

1) IF a gift-giving Santa Claus exists...what would be the evidence of that being?

If I took the stories and writings about St Nick / Santa Claus literally, I would expect to see a fat guy in a red suit, being pulled through the sky by flying reindeer, delivering gifts on Christmas Eve. But, as with the Bible, we know that stories get exaggerated and don't always align with what makes sense or is, in some cases, even possible.

2) IF a creating GOD exists...what would be the evidence of that being?

This is the advantage that Christians have created for their beliefs. Since none of the magical events of the Bible are happening today, Christians have figured out a way to attribute pretty much any event to their God, including the creation of everything - "Things exist, so Jesus/God made them".

If a Christian gets fired from their job, it's because Jesus/God had other plans for them. If a loved one dies at an early age, Jesus/God wanted to bring them to heaven, but if someone is unexpectedly cured of stage 4 cancer, it "wasn't their time" to be taken by Jesus/God.

Basically, anything that happens, good or bad, can be attributed to Jesus/God, should a believer wish to do so.

The answer for #1 would be: The "good" or "nice" children of the world would be receiving gifts and presents that could be accounted for only by having been given via an unknown source on Christmas Eve or Morning.

There is just about no indication that children anywhere are given gifts and presents. It would be a fairly easy thing to evaluate...versus gifts and presents for which a donor can be established.

The answer for two would be: A physical universe with things like galaxies, stars, planets, animals, vegetables, and minerals with an unknown source.

That is what we see every day...everywhere, all the time.

Right. This is what I referenced above - anything that a Christian wants to attribute to Jesus/God can be proof of Jesus/God. The argument for "things exist, it must be God" only works if you already believe in a God.

So...there is no evidence for Santa Claus (IF one exists) at all...while there is EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS as evidence of a GOD (IF a creating GOD exists.) We just do not know if a creating GOD exists...so EVERYTHING may be just something other than evidence of a creating GOD.

Like I mentioned above, written/oral stories often get exaggerated. Maybe Saint Nick / Santa Claus is just the being that causes us to feel the spirit of Christmas and go out and buy all the gifts, not literally delivering the gifts on a slay pulled by magical reindeer.

In any case, though, the evidence is NOT the same.

Jesus/God have stories written about them. Saint Nick / Santa Claus have stories written about them.

There's nothing tangible, today, that proves the existence of Jesus/God or Saint Nick / Santa Claus.

The evidence seems pretty similar.

 

[Into the Night]

Someone forgot to take their medication

Mantra 1d. Lame.

 

[gmark77]

I do understand atheism...and I understand that in the mid-20th century a group of debating atheists realized that defining it as it was defined at that time (a belief that no gods exist), meant that they were doing "believing" just like the theists were doing "believing"...except in a different direction.

So they decided to change the definition...and made the pretense that atheism means "a" (without) + theism (a BELIEF in a god) = without a BELIEF in a god.

But that is nonsense primarily because the word "atheist" came into the English language decades BEFORE the word "theist." It could not have come about that way.

You can check this out with almost any pre-mid century dictionary. Damn near all say the word means "a belief that there are no gods...or a belief that no gods exist.)

So take that bullshit that I do not understand the word and shove it up your ass.


You do not think...and that is your problem. But you want to suppose your nonsense is so powerful that those of us who clai you are wrong...are terrified of you.

You are a joke.


Anyone who "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods IS MAKING AN UNEVIDENCED CLAIM.

And the cowardly atheists who pretend they are not doing that...are jerks.


I am arguing against doing so. YOU are the one arguing that people should "believe" YOUR unevidenced claims.

You are a moron. And as I said earlier, in a judged debate on this issue...I would wipe you out.

So much writing for someone who is vamping waaaay too hard to cover their ignorance.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And more importantly: what right do YOU believe you have to tell me what I think?

 

[martin]

I do understand atheism...and I understand that in the mid-20th century a group of debating atheists realized that defining it as it was defined at that time (a belief that no gods exist), meant that they were doing "believing" just like the theists were doing "believing"...except in a different direction.

So they decided to change the definition...and made the pretense that atheism means "a" (without) + theism (a BELIEF in a god) = without a BELIEF in a god.

But that is nonsense primarily because the word "atheist" came into the English language decades BEFORE the word "theist." It could not have come about that way.

You can check this out with almost any pre-mid century dictionary. Damn near all say the word means "a belief that there are no gods...or a belief that no gods exist.)

So take that bullshit that I do not understand the word and shove it up your ass.


You do not think...and that is your problem. But you want to suppose your nonsense is so powerful that those of us who clai you are wrong...are terrified of you.

You are a joke.


Anyone who "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods IS MAKING AN UNEVIDENCED CLAIM.

And the cowardly atheists who pretend they are not doing that...are jerks.


I am arguing against doing so. YOU are the one arguing that people should "believe" YOUR unevidenced claims.

You are a moron. And as I said earlier, in a judged debate on this issue...I would wipe you out.

Except that word meanings do not necessarily develop systematically. It would not be "nonsense" for the meaning of "atheist" to shift from a prior meaning.

 

[Into the Night]

Best way to answer that question is to look at two conditionals.

1) IF a gift-giving Santa Claus exists...what would be the evidence of that being?

Church records...newspaper articles of the period...many children of the period.

2) IF a creating GOD exists...what would be the evidence of that being?

I have already answered that question. Go back and read it. RQAA

The answer for #1 would be: The "good" or "nice" children of the world would be receiving gifts and presents that could be accounted for only by having been given via an unknown source on Christmas Eve or Morning.

There are also church records and many newspaper articles about St Nicholas.

There is just about no indication that children anywhere are given gifts and presents. It would be a fairly easy thing to evaluate...versus gifts and presents for which a donor can be established.

St Nicholas was well know for his philanthropy towards children, particularly poor children.

The answer for two would be: A physical universe with things like galaxies, stars, planets, animals, vegetables, and minerals with an unknown source.

How can anyone create a universe if there is no universe for him to be in?

That is what we see every day...everywhere, all the time.

Fine, but you first must answer that paradox.

So...there is no evidence for Santa Claus (IF one exists) at all..

Yes there is. I just gave some of it.

.while there is EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS as evidence of a GOD (IF a creating GOD exists.) We just do not know if a creating GOD exists...so EVERYTHING may be just something other than evidence of a creating GOD.

So how does any god create a universe when there is no universe for him to be in?

In any case, though, the evidence is NOT the same.

Why would it be? No one ever claimed it was.

 

[Into the Night]

It must be time for your lithium dose.

Mantra 1d. Lame. It is obvious you have no argument left.

 

[Into the Night]

I like "after close examination". Since the usual methods of "examination" don't apply here maybe time travel took him back and he got a good look.

He's making up the 'close examination' as if somehow someone special judged for him using special techniques. He is simply admitting he has no mind of his own.

 

[gmark77]

Except that word meanings do not necessarily develop systematically. It would not be "nonsense" for the meaning of "atheist" to shift from a prior meaning.

Ross doesn't understand atheism. Like Cypress he hates atheism and fears it. There's no reason to write as much blather as he does and construct such fucked up "statements" like "more likely that there is none than that there is more than one" or whatever the fuck it is that animates his limited brain.

It's simple as fuck. But Ross and Cypress both hate atheism and can't allow it to exist. Or they fear it. Either way they hate the fact that someone thinks differently from them and it galls them even moreso because they can't even understand the concept they are fighting against.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. You don't understand atheism.

I've only seen about five people on JPP understand atheism. The rest are screwed up in some way, typically trying to represent the Church off No God (a fundamentalist style religion) as 'atheism'.

But the worst part is that it is so drop dead simple you'd have to be pretty dim to not understand it.

Apparently the meaning of the word eludes most people on JPP. This kind of thing is pretty normal here.

I think that's your problem. You want to hold forth and express your massive intellect like Cypress does but you don't understand the topic and you look a fool to those of us who do.

Buzzwords aren't intellect. Cypress hasn't figured that out yet.