(May 31, 2020 at 3:49 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: I think because world is so tragic and depressin that people often embrace nightmare scenarios of afterlife torture and other magical stuff just to keep on leaving and dont kill themselves.

If it weren't for religion then perhaps the world would be rather less tragic and depressing.

(May 31, 2020 at 1:33 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

---

(May 31, 2020 at 1:30 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Jesus is reputed to have said that he is a shepherd and his followers are his flock - and you insult us by calling our group a herd?


You got a lotta self-hate going there Jebusboy....


I suggest you find a different hobby.

I never said it was an insult. I suggest you read more books to improve your reading comprehension, Mr. pseudo-intellectual.

Really?

So - you are a narcissistic bloody cunt who is more full of shit than a Tiajuana outhouse on fish taco Friday -

But I never said that it was an insult.....


Read that you nozzle.

(May 31, 2020 at 1:33 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 31, 2020 at 1:08 pm)possibletarian Wrote: Okay, if that's what you believe Wink

(and it's herds not herd's by the way )

No, I'm pretty sure it's herd's mentality. In other words, the mentality of your herd (a group of pseudo-intellectual atheists). Your herd's mentality. If I were speaking more generally then it'd be herd mentality.

I'm not sure why a guy who doesn't know how to spell courtesy or how periods, commas, and question marks work is suddenly critiquing grammar and typos, but it's hilarious. Are you trolling?

I find it amusing that instead of presenting any evidence at all, you quibble about grammar.

Would that be because you have no evidence? Any chance that is true?

Of course it isn't true. You are quibbling grammar because you know for a fact that you have no evidence, none, nada, rien du tout, fuck all.

If you had any you would have ponied it up by now, but you have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for a god, any god, you would have offered it by now. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for your particular god, You would have offered it already. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had demonstrated that your particular flavour of god was real, would I accept it. Sure, if you had solid evidence. But you have none.

And even then, if I accepted and was convinced that your god was real, I would consider it my moral duty and imperative to kill/destroy the immoral bastard by any means.

You and your imaginary sky fairy can go take an unlikely anatomical excursion.

(May 31, 2020 at 3:59 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 31, 2020 at 1:33 pm)brokenreflector Wrote: No, I'm pretty sure it's herd's mentality. In other words, the mentality of your herd (a group of pseudo-intellectual atheists). Your herd's mentality. If I were speaking more generally then it'd be herd mentality.

I'm not sure why a guy who doesn't know how to spell courtesy or how periods, commas, and question marks work is suddenly critiquing grammar and typos, but it's hilarious. Are you trolling?

I find it amusing that instead of presenting any evidence at all, you quibble about grammar.

Would that be because you have no evidence? Any chance that is true?

Of course it isn't true. You are quibbling grammar because you know for a fact that you have no evidence, none, nada, rien du tout, fuck all.

If you had any you would have ponied it up by now, but you have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for a god, any god, you would have offered it by now. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for your particular god, You would have offered it already. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had demonstrated that your particular flavour of god was real, would I accept it. Sure, if you had solid evidence. But you have none.

And even then, if I accepted and was convinced that your god was real, I would consider it my moral duty and imperative to kill/destroy the immoral bastard by any means.  

You and your imaginary sky fairy can go take an unlikely anatomical excursion.

A Craig Bot calling us a herd lolololololollol

(May 31, 2020 at 3:55 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(May 31, 2020 at 1:33 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

---

I never said it was an insult. I suggest you read more books to improve your reading comprehension, Mr. pseudo-intellectual.

Really?

So - you are a narcissistic bloody cunt who is more full of shit than a Tiajuana outhouse on fish taco Friday -

But I never said that it was an insult.....


Read that you nozzle.

This is getting a tad "meta".

William Lane Craig is a christian apologist.

BustedTailight is thus an apologist for an apologist.

It's turtles all the way down. 

Good old infinite regress, ya gotta love it.

(May 31, 2020 at 4:07 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 31, 2020 at 3:55 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Really?

So - you are a narcissistic bloody cunt who is more full of shit than a Tiajuana outhouse on fish taco Friday -

But I never said that it was an insult.....


Read that you nozzle.

This is getting a tad "meta".

William Lane Craig is a christian apologist.

BustedTailight is thus an apologist for an apologist.

It's turtles all the way down. 

Good old infinite regress, ya gotta love it.

And now you know why i don't want to debate him . If i wanted to hear Billy's lame ass apologetics why would i listen to some puppet repeating them rather then go to the man himself ? It's not like he's bringing anything unique .

(May 31, 2020 at 12:29 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 31, 2020 at 12:14 pm)Nomad Wrote: Have you any evidence for your assertion?

What do you mean? I'm describing a being that may or may not exist. I then go on to argue that this being must exist because if it doesn't, then we're left with two logically incoherent explanations for the origin of all things.

Quote:Oh, dear the "everything must have a creator" assertion.

I never claimed that.

On the first part, evidence go get it. Now.  Otherwise I'm just going to dismiss your assertions as unevidenced and not worthy of contemplation.

On the second part, oh yes you did. The paragraph I quoted and stated was "everything must have a creator" was you claiming exactly that, except for in an incredibly incoherent and idiotic way.

---

(May 31, 2020 at 12:29 pm)brokenreflector Wrote: You better go tell Roger Penrose.

Tell him what? That you're an idiot, I don't think he'd care.

---

(May 31, 2020 at 1:33 pm)brokenreflector Wrote:

me Wrote:Because we're not talking about atheism, we're talking about the beginning of the universe, especially your not even wrong version of it.

I was talking about atheism. It's in my original post. Go check it out.

No you were talking about the beginning of the universe, and then wrongly attributed a hypothesis about the beginning of the unviverse as a core belief of atheism when it's nothing of the sort.

I'm an atheist and I've no idea how the universe started, mainly because I'm not well enough educated to understand either the evidence or the conclusions being drawn. But I do know that your "goddidit" is not a valid answer, because your god has been disproven. You even managed to disprove him right here in this thread.

So, we've got drick, johan, and defective, now where is that pesky forth horseman of absurdity?

(May 31, 2020 at 8:08 pm)no one Wrote: So, we've got drick, johan, and defective, now where is that pesky forth horseman of absurdity?

Oh, oh....I know the answer...

(May 30, 2020 at 11:40 pm)brokenreflector Wrote: By God I mean a necessary, non-physical, and personal being who created all things: seen, unseen, discovered, and undiscovered. Being a Christian, I believe God is more than that, but this post is about the general concept of God.

Ask yourself this question: What are the plausible explanations for the origin of all things? It seems to me that we're left with the following explanations:

First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.

Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.

The second explanation gets rid of the problem of nonbeing producing being and there doesn't seem to be any glaring issue with it. Issues arise only if you're an atheist. Put simply, atheists do not believe that God exists. There are many flavors of atheism and ways that people spin the word, but this is what it really comes down to. If an atheist chooses to accept the second explanation, then they're forced to believe that something eternal exists, but it's not God. Typically, atheists who choose this second explanation will believe that the universe or multiverse is eternal. But the idea that the universe is eternal is logically incoherent and not to mention against what contemporary scientific evidence suggests. For the latter, I refer you to a certain point of a debate between philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig and physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss (https://youtu.be/mj4nbL53I-E?t=5408). Despite being a staunch and vocal atheist, Dr. Krauss begrudgingly admits in this YouTube clip that contemporary scientific evidence points to the universe being past-finite.

Going back to the logical problem with the second explanation, the incoherence stems from the implications of an eternal universe. If the universe is indeed eternal, then that means our universe has already been through an actually infinite number of changes or processes, all leading up to the present. Otherwise, the present wouldn't be occurring. But how did an infinite amount of changes already transpire? The fact that these changes were traversed seems to suggest that they're finite rather than infinite. This seems to be a big problem for the atheist.

I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause. This is because God doesn't go through changes. He's not made up of parts or processes. He's non-physical or immaterial. Therefore, God being past-eternal doesn't lead to the same implausible implication that an actually infinite number of changes has already transpired.

Saying that God (or anything like that) created the Universe is just a dishonest way to say 'I don't know how the Universe came to be'.

Problem is that humans want explanations for anything and some want them now, no matter what. Thus for some 'therefore, God' seems to be good enaugh of an answer. And the reality is that certain questions just cannot be answered and other ones do not have simple explanations general public anticipate.

How did the Universe come to be? No one knows beyond certain point in time. The so-called Big Bang is the deepest event in universal history humans have been able to explore so far.