I can feel your anger

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Comparing it to religion, you clearly do not.


The above statement betrays that you don't know fuck about science.


Oh, we've got the point pretty clearly: You are a willfully ignorant troll.

I'm not sure if you're aware but you just continue to prove my point.

Beyond wishful thinking.

I have said atheists depend on science on a religious basis.

Yes, you did. And it's complete bullshit. A Straw Man.



There had been atheists for thousands of years before science came along. And even more before evolutionary theory, and before Big Bang theory, and before Copernicus and Galileo. All of these atheists did not depend up on science at all, and all an atheist has to do is be able to see that The emperor Has No Fucking Clothes. Easy-peasy.

Science is objective your application of science of it is subjective.

I do not rely upon science in order to reject your fairy tales and superstition.

This is why these are different, if you don't understand just continue with the tourettes.

Nice try, asswipe. I call a spade a spade.

How does one "know fuck about science"?

It requires at least one working brain cell. Sorry, punk, you ain't got it.

You are sooo trollish.

I was a troll before there was a word for them.

Yeah. Too Stupid To Live.

---

Nobody here has claimed the issue you are addressing. It's a strawman.

Really? so everyone here dismisses Stephen Hawking's view that there is no need for a god? Wow, first atheist forum I've come to which doesn't use that as a standard retort for the first cause argument.

Proving that your trolling OP was a straw man. Thanks for the admission.

The first cause argument -- and keep in mind that arguments are not evidence, so you are wasting your time anyway -- hinges on a Special Pleading Fallacy. To wit: What created your creator? You cannot address that without special pleading. Hawking's view is irrelevant, your assertion falls on its own lack of merit.

---

The ole chew toy response. Dude, I used that when I knew what I was talking about. You just rant in-between saying fuck and shit.

I say fuck and shit in between ripping your bullshit to shreds. But you go ahead and focus on that, because you really have nowhere else to go.

[Selliedjoup]

I don't have a creator, you just prefer to assert that I do as you think it strengthens your case. I made no assertion, atheists use Stephen Hawking's belief to counter the first cause argument. Odd how someone will present a flawed belief when they already believe the conclusion. Almost seems religious, perhaps 2 wrongs make a right?

It wasn't an admission I was being facetious.

Evidence is required to prove a creator, science is the only way anything can be proven, science has not proven a creator, therefore a a creator does not exist.
Just so you don't confuse yourself, this is a parody of your position, it is not mine.

Come to think of it are you a parody of atheists on forums, or are you genuine? If you're genuine, chill out. You think I'm retarded, i think you're retarded, this is what happens in life. People don't always like each other or agree.

[Jackalope]

Really? so everyone here dismisses Stephen Hawking's view that there is no need for a god? Wow, first atheist forum I've come to which doesn't use that as a standard retort for the first cause argument.

If you have a problem with Hawkings' argument, take it up with him. Very, very few people are going to be able to adequately defend it.

I for one find his argument interesting, but I do not have a sufficient background in physics to defend it, so I won't. Neither will I assert that it is true.

Futhermore, I do not assert that there is no god, but rather that the burden of proof to establish the existence of god has not been met by those who assert existence. I also hold the position that the term "god" is so ill-defined that it's necessary to provide a definition of exactly what the term means before any meaningful debate can occur.

In one of the threads here, I presented an refutation of first cause (specifically WLC's version of the Kalam cosmological argument). If you're really interested in the subject, and want to argue against positions people actually hold, rather than offering someone else's argument as a proxy strawman, I'll make an effort to find it. You could of course avail yourself of our search function.

To summarize, WLC's KCA is valid, but not sound as it's premises are not known to be true - specifically, that it is not known that the cosmos began to exists, nor is the principle of causality certain (In my refutation, I offer a few examples where causality is in doubt). WLC himself has admitted that at least one of his premises is based upon intuition. Not the strongest of foundations to build an argument upon.

To paraphrase another regular here, to prove A then B, you must first prove A.

I will agree that the cosmological argument is the strongest argument that theists have to offer, but I do not find it compelling. It's truth value is unknown at this time.

Edited to add: Here's a post I made a while back that included my analysis of why I find the KCA flawed.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I don't have a creator, you just prefer to assert that I do as you think it strengthens your case.

We know you are a liar and a troll. It really doesn't matter what you really believe. Atheists and agnostics do not troll x-tard arguments and throw up straw men in an attempt to drag us into them. It is not difficult to see through your bullshit.

I made no assertion, atheists use Stephen Hawking's belief to counter the first cause argument.

You demanded, and still demand, that we defend Hawkings' theories when none of us has asserted them. That is a straw man argument. As I already explained and you were too stupid to get, I do not use Hawkings' theories to refute first cause bullshit, and there really is no need to.

Odd how someone will present a flawed belief when they already believe the conclusion. Almost seems religious, perhaps 2 wrongs make a right?

It wasn't an admission I was being facetious.

You destroyed any hope of credibility in your first couple of posts.

Evidence is required to prove a creator, science is the only way anything can be proven, science has not proven a creator, therefore a a creator does not exist.

Just so you don't confuse yourself, this is a parody of your position, it is not mine.

Come to think of it are you a parody of atheists on forums, or are you genuine?

I am absolutely genuine.

If you're genuine, chill out.

Go pound fire ants up your ass. I am enjoying destroying you.

You think I'm retarded,

I and everyone else here can see that you are a fucking delusional idiot.

i think you're retarded,

Lovely bit of self-delusional projection there.

this is what happens in life. People don't always like each other or agree.

There is a huge difference between disagreeing and recognizing that you are a disingenuous trolling fucktard.

[Autumnlicious]

You. Really. Don't. Get. It.

[Selliedjoup]

Really? so everyone here dismisses Stephen Hawking's view that there is no need for a god? Wow, first atheist forum I've come to which doesn't use that as a standard retort for the first cause argument.

If you have a problem with Hawkings' argument, take it up with him. Very, very few people are going to be able to adequately defend it.

I for one find his argument interesting, but I do not have a sufficient background in physics to defend it, so I won't. Neither will I assert that it is true.

Futhermore, I do not assert that there is no god, but rather that the burden of proof to establish the existence of god has not been met by those who assert existence. I also hold the position that the term "god" is so ill-defined that it's necessary to provide a definition of exactly what the term means before any meaningful debate can occur.

In one of the threads here, I presented an refutation of first cause (specifically WLC's version of the Kalam cosmological argument). If you're really interested in the subject, and want to argue against positions people actually hold, rather than offering someone else's argument as a proxy strawman, I'll make an effort to find it. You could of course avail yourself of our search function.

To summarize, WLC's KCA is valid, but not sound as it's premises are not known to be true - specifically, that it is not known that the cosmos began to exists, nor is the principle of causality certain (In my refutation, I offer a few examples where causality is in doubt). WLC himself has admitted that at least one of his premises is based upon intuition. Not the strongest of foundations to build an argument upon.

To paraphrase another regular here, to prove A then B, you must first prove A.

I will agree that the cosmological argument is the strongest argument that theists have to offer, but I do not find it compelling. It's truth value is unknown at this time.

Edited to add: Here's a post I made a while back that included my analysis of why I find the KCA flawed.

To some degree that is the issue I have with Stephen Hawkings' presenting it. He hasn't defined his argument in a terrible logical fashion, yet presents it as viable option.

No one seemingly will dare dispute what's he said, particularly given it's in the realm of theoretical physics. And as it's in this realm it becomes almost untouchable, almost an element of faith has crept into it.

I am not a believer, despite many may consider I am, I just play devil's advocate.

I will look over your link, I find it to be the strongest argument for a first cause.

Probably the biggest issue I have is some atheists seem to consider they possess the ability to assess whether a 'creator' is an actual option. I see no reason to believe this to be true, and even more strangely science is a common used warcry used to discount a creator. Why? I have no idea. The best that has come to light is science has found no evidence of a guy in a beard and robes floating about in space, or as come to explain how some things occur (e.g. the commonly used lightening) therefore science will eventually explain everything including the non-existence of a god.

I can understand why you require the definition of a god, however, the issue with this is it presupposes that a creator must be knowable, for if it is unknowable it cannot exist.

For all intents and purposes, unknowable may equate to being rendered without any purpose, however, this does not discount it by virtue of being unknowable. This is a reason why the atheist position baffles me.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I made no assertion, atheists use Stephen Hawking's belief to counter the first cause argument.

[Jackalope]

To some degree that is the issue I have with Stephen Hawkings' presenting it. He hasn't defined his argument in a terrible logical fashion, yet presents it as viable option.

It's quite possible that you lack the background to fully grasp the argument. That's not a criticism - as I myself do not. Half of the stuff he says goes over my head, the other half goes WAY over my head.

No one seemingly will dare dispute what's he said, particularly given it's in the realm of theoretical physics. And as it's in this realm it becomes almost untouchable, almost an element of faith has crept into it.

I doubt I would have to look very hard to find other theoretical physicists that disagree with him on at least minor points, if not major ones.

I am not a believer, despite many may consider I am, I just play devil's advocate.

I don't think you are, I have a problem with the approach you chose to take early on (which, once you've been here for awhile, you'll see is reminiscent of the lines that is taken by a fair number of trolls that drop by).

Probably the biggest issue I have is some atheists seem to consider they possess the ability to assess whether a 'creator' is an actual option. I see no reason to believe this to be true, and even more strangely science is a common used warcry used to discount a creator.

Look, if someone were to present a novel argument for a creator, I'd do my best to evaluate it as objectively as I'm capable of doing. Haven't seen a new argument in a long, long time.

I can understand why you require the definition of a god, however, the issue with this is it presupposes that a creator must be knowable, for if it is unknowable it cannot exist.

I would not say that. I would say if it's unknowable, it's unknowable - and if it's unobservable the truth value of it's existence is unknowable. I recognize that I can't investigate every claim, and so must pick my battles. I choose to take those seriously that can be examined empirically and/or via deduction. For the rest, I take a skeptical position - which is to say that I do not necessarily consider them impossible, unless they are demonstrably so.

For all intents and purposes, unknowable may equate to being rendered without any purpose, however, this does not discount it by virtue of being unknowable. This is a reason why the atheist position baffles me.

I believe that part of the problem here is a difference in definitions. As customarily used in these circles, "atheist" only means an absence of belief in god. It does not necessarily mean that god does not exist (strong/gnostic atheism). It seems to me that the more common position is that one does not know, and as a result, does not have belief (weak/agnostic atheism). There are other positions.

Personally, I could take either the gnostic or agnostic position, depending on the definition of god and the attributes asserted for same. Absent such, I consider myself agnostic on the issue.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

To some degree that is the issue I have with Stephen Hawkings' presenting it.

Then go argue with Hawkings. Send us copies. Heh.

He hasn't defined his argument in a terrible logical fashion, yet presents it as viable option.

You wouldn't know logical if it bent you over and fucked you in the ass.

No one seemingly will dare dispute what's he said, particularly given it's in the realm of theoretical physics.

So what? So you come strawmanning it up at us. What a fucktard.

And as it's in this realm it becomes almost untouchable, almost an element of faith has crept into it.

That is your own bullshit projection.

I am not a believer, despite many may consider I am, I just play devil's advocate.

We already know you are a lying sack of shit. If you in fact ARE playing self-appointed fucking devils advocate, that makes you worse that the run of the mill creotard that actually believes it. Did anyone here ask you to play devil's advocate? Did anyone call for a fucktard to step up and play devil's fucking advocate? You can stuff devil's advocate right up your ass along with all those fire ants.

I will look over your link, I find it to be the strongest argument for a first cause.

Great endorsement coming from someone who wouldn't know logic and reason if it surprise-buttfucked him.

Probably the biggest issue I have is some atheists seem to consider they possess the ability to assess whether a 'creator' is an actual option.

WHAT atheists? Go argue with them, then, asswipe, istead of trolling here with your ridiculous strawmen.

I see no reason to believe this to be true, and even more strangely science is a common used warcry used to discount a creator.

That is the sort of bullshit that tips your hands as an ignorant theist pretending to be agnostic.

Why? I have no idea. The best that has come to light is science has found no evidence of a guy in a beard and robes floating about in space,

And that, as well. Theists have done everything they can to hide their made-up sky fairy in places where it can't be found. Yet they claim that it can and has appeared to certain people. We can read between the lines that this is a pathological bullshit shell game. Same with you.

or as come to explain how some things occur (e.g. the commonly used lightening) therefore science will eventually explain everything including the non-existence of a god.

If you can find someone who claims that, then go argue with them.

I can understand why you require the definition of a god, however, the issue with this is it presupposes that a creator must be knowable, for if it is unknowable it cannot exist.

We can tell that you are making the shit up as you go along. Part of why we know that is because you keep trying to hide it in places where it can't be found.

For all intents and purposes, unknowable may equate to being rendered without any purpose, however, this does not discount it by virtue of being unknowable. This is a reason why the atheist position baffles me.

There is no "atheist position". All A-Theist means is that we don't believe in your made-up imaginary sky fairy. We don't have to claim it doesn't exist. Nor do we have to prove it doesn't exist. All we do is call your bluff.

---

It's scary thing when people believe that the metaphysical belief of a wheelcheered scientist is fact.I'm still unsure wheher it's due to science being used as a religious replacement by some people. The lack of wisdom by those who supposedly hold a superior intellect is also scary.

If all you need to affirm that as the universe has a total energy of 0, and that causality is dismissed as time did not exist then it's sufficient to confirm your own theories? Really? Are these your trump cards? Just admit you have no idea otherwise your persepctive is as warped as any other fundamentalists.

[Ace Otana]

Yes i understand what science is. Try not to intertwine what science is and how you use science to justify your belief system.

Belief system? I have a belief system? Ok....what is my belief system?
You seem to know me better than I do, so please, enlighten me.

I don't think you do know what science is, you talked about it as if it's a religion or belief system, when it's not.

Here's a slap!