(September 29, 2011 at 2:54 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(September 28, 2011 at 4:31 pm)Zaki Aminu Wrote: Of-course, if you could offer conclusive proof for His non-existence that would settle the matter. But you can't, can you?

It's impossible to offer conclusive proof for the nonexistence of something. For example, a colony of unicorns could live in a galaxy far, far away and we would have no way of knowing. Duh.

Not that it matters, as you can't offer conclusive proof of his existence can you? The point is, if you claim god exists, you have to prove it. If you don't believe other people's assertions that god exists, you have nothing to prove.

---

(September 29, 2011 at 6:22 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: There is a hierachy in Existence. Some things are absolutely dependent for their existence on others.

As far as I can tell, that is true of all things. This is a symbiotic -- if you'll pardon me using the term rather loosely -- universe. So, basically, everything is less than real, based on your beliefs. I wish you could name one thing that did not rely on anything else for its very existence. I might just be drawing a blank. However, if you cannot, then this ultimate reality is just a construct of an overactive, but shortsighted imagination. Not that I have a prejudice against such things. Imagine away, Zaki.

Right! So what you're saying is that you don't even regard YOURSELF -YOUR OWN EXISTENCE - as quite real, eh? Very interesting. Well, in that case, what is the reason to regard anything you think or say as real? Hahahahahahahahahaha! These atheist "philosophers"! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

By the way, how do you suppose all that imagining and constructing can be done without real free will?

With regard to your symbiosis example: What is the symbiotic relationship that exists between bricks and brick walls? Hahahahahahahahahahah! You weren't paying attention, were you?

Um, that is not what I said at all. I was actually only speaking about your beliefs. I said nothing of my own. Furthermore, what I said contradicted what you said, as I asserted that all things are dependent on something else. You asserted that some things are less real because they have to depend on something else. Therefore, your "right" is reading like an attempt to make it sound like I agree with your asinine claims when it is quite clear that I do not. Do try to keep up.

Quote:Some things are absolutely dependent for their existence on others.

I think he's absolutely correct. The existence of invisible sky-daddy's for instance is totally dependent on the existence of the gullibility of believers.

(September 30, 2011 at 2:04 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Some things are absolutely dependent for their existence on others.

I think he's absolutely correct. The existence of invisible sky-daddy's for instance is totally dependent on the existence of the gullibility of believers.

Right! And they also brought themselves into being with their gullibility, didn't they? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

---

(September 30, 2011 at 2:00 am)Shell B Wrote: Um, that is not what I said at all. I was actually only speaking about your beliefs. I said nothing of my own. Furthermore, what I said contradicted what you said, as I asserted that all things are dependent on something else. You asserted that some things are less real because they have to depend on something else. Therefore, your "exactly" is reading like an attempt to make it sound like I agree with your asinine claims when it is quite clear that I do not. Do try to keep up.

Well the issue was about Reality - not mere beliefs. Do pay attention!

(September 30, 2011 at 2:05 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: Well the issue was about Reality - not mere beliefs. Do pay attention!

Yes, and your beliefs about reality are hokey, at best. Would you care to address the fact that your previous response to me is one big misleading attempt to make it sound like I said something I do not or is inferring things that are not implied something you are in denial about?

(September 30, 2011 at 2:11 am)Shell B Wrote:

(September 30, 2011 at 2:05 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: Well the issue was about Reality - not mere beliefs. Do pay attention!

Yes, and your beliefs about reality are hokey, at best. Would you care to address the fact that your previous response to me is one big misleading attempt to make it sound like I said something I do not or is inferring things that are not implied something you are in denial about?

You did say that NOTHING in the Universe - including YOURSELF therefore is - "quite real", did you not? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

(September 30, 2011 at 2:21 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote: You did say that NOTHING in the Universe - including YOURSELF therefore is - "quite real", did you not? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Do not deliberately misquote me to suit your needs.

Shell B Wrote:So, basically, everything is less than real, based on your beliefs.

The above is the original quote, though I just put the relevant information in italics.

If you want to actually discuss what I said in reply to your own statements about a topic you introduced, I am more than happy to continue. However, if you are going to continue to trail off topic and digitally laugh hysterically every time you blatantly misconstrue something I say, I will ignore you, at best. We already have one member who does that like it is his job. Two is more than I can be bothered with.

This guy is reminding me more and more of a thertain Thithilian ...

(September 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 28, 2011 at 1:24 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Wrong thread.

---

If jesuslovesyou/stucky can still read this, or has stopped trolling. Google, Russells teapot, and you too will understand why the burden of proof lies at your feet. I do not believe in a god, because there is no reason too. If science show tomorrow that they have proof of a god, I will read the material myself and if it is confirmed by other reputable scientists, I will become a.................

















Deist.

Not a fucking Christian.

Why do you need others to help you decide on such a serious matter? And anyway, the fact that something has not been proven to your satisfaction does not mean it is not true, does it? The American continent, for instance, existed long before it was known about in Europe. To have asserted that it didn't exist because there was no evidence about it a millennium ago would have been absurd, would it not?

If you're going to deny the existence of everything until it is proven to your satisfaction and a majority of scientists you approve of are also convinced, would you not simply be a hindrance to scientific discovery? Shouldn't your task be to go out and find evidence yourself - conclusive evidence - and not wait for others to do that job for you - making life as difficult for them as possible in the meantime.

Take it out of context why don't you. Scientifically unprovable things like god/religion require the proof of the person who makes the claim. RUSSELLS TEAPOT, so I dont have to waste my time chasing the lies of others.

(September 30, 2011 at 3:02 am)5thHorseman Wrote:

(September 28, 2011 at 3:24 pm)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 28, 2011 at 1:24 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Wrong thread.

---

If jesuslovesyou/stucky can still read this, or has stopped trolling. Google, Russells teapot, and you too will understand why the burden of proof lies at your feet. I do not believe in a god, because there is no reason too. If science show tomorrow that they have proof of a god, I will read the material myself and if it is confirmed by other reputable scientists, I will become a.................

When did you prove your claim that they are "scientifically unprovable"? Just asserting something doesn't make it so you know.

















Deist.

Not a fucking Christian.

Why do you need others to help you decide on such a serious matter? And anyway, the fact that something has not been proven to your satisfaction does not mean it is not true, does it? The American continent, for instance, existed long before it was known about in Europe. To have asserted that it didn't exist because there was no evidence about it a millennium ago would have been absurd, would it not?

If you're going to deny the existence of everything until it is proven to your satisfaction and a majority of scientists you approve of are also convinced, would you not simply be a hindrance to scientific discovery? Shouldn't your task be to go out and find evidence yourself - conclusive evidence - and not wait for others to do that job for you - making life as difficult for them as possible in the meantime.

Take it out of context why don't you. Scientifically unprovable things like god/religion require the proof of the person who makes the claim. RUSSELLS TEAPOT, so I dont have to waste my time chasing the lies of others.