Total posts: 200
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think that's just common knowledge that when there is a large group of objects and we don't want someone to touch one of them, we say they can touch all of them except the one we don't want them to touch. This is much easier than trying to list all the objects they can touch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And another post to report. Keep em coming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I have reported that post, as well. You're digging quite a deep hole for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrSpy
The Standard Model describes all the forces (except gravity), known particles and how they interact. This would indeed be the states of matter of everything we know in the universe so far. If this was what you're looking for, then it would provide the answers if we were to break down the tree into its known substances and go from there. The noise part of the equation would include the interaction of phonons.
Created:
If the Earth stopped rotating, we would all be flung to the East at somewhere between 300 and 1000 mph, followed by the oceans, the atmosphere and anything else not grounded to the Earth. It would be total and complete destruction on a global scale and no one would survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I have used this account to report you to the moderators yet again for name calling and false accusations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it
That part there would be where God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of that tree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DrSpy
Does quantum mechanics prove that if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, it does not make a noise?
While there currently isn't a quantum solution for gravity, we could turn to classic physics; Newtons Laws if we want to find out how much force was placed upon the tree and the ground. From the energy released from the impact, quantum solutions could tell us what happens at the level. To your question about noise, the impact would created phonons that would travel through the ground and the atmosphere which would definitely produce noise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I have not been banned and if you continue with the false accusations, I will report you to the moderators as I did before. Did the warning they gave you have no meaning?The same ones who banned you?
Perhaps I should create a fake account and spam the board. Would they like that?
Please do, but I'm sure they won't appreciate that.
Created:
Posted in:
I observe a lack of intelligence being posted on these forums.Can you feel that dodge coming on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Christians are not born, they are converted....From the darkness of atheism to the glorious light of Christianity.
"Religious conversion is the adoption of a set of beliefs identified with one particular religious denomination to the exclusion of others. Thus "religious conversion" would describe the abandoning of adherence to one denomination and affiliating with another. "
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If God's "wrath" was because of Adam & Eve's lack of knowledge of good and evil, why was it not expressed when they actually did lack that knowledge? God first told them that "of every tree thou mayest freely eat," and He meant every one of them.
"Genesis 2 narrates that Yahweh places the first man and woman in a garden with trees of whose fruits they may eat, but forbids them to eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." When, in Genesis 3, a serpent persuades the woman to eat from its forbidden fruit and she also lets the man taste it, God expels them from the garden."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I was also referring to the lack of knowledge of good and evil, which is the reason God's wrath upon Adam and Eve was given and why they were banished from Eden.
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry, I'm not aware of thatI'm not really talking about that. I'm referring to, for one, the barbaric practices inside clinics that have caused employees to quit, and take an ant-abortion stance.
Do you think the abortion doctors make sure it's the woman's decision?
It's the women who fill out the applications, however what happens behind the scenes is anyone's guess.
Would you be able to tell me how many humanists were Christians during these laws? I sure couldn't. If you can, by all means show me.Would you be able to tell me how many humanists were atheists during these laws? I sure couldn't. If you can, by all means show me.
No idea, sorry.
History shows, racial stereotypes (or even segregation) never comes to an end without substantial protest from the victims. We're still dealing with this.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
While it's technically true that all children are born atheist in that they lack a belief in God, children who are born and raised to be Christians have not been converted as they have not abandoned another faith in order to become Christians.Christians are not born, they are converted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That's a very interesting point. I'm reminded of the Garden of Eden tale in which innocence and the lack of knowledge of good and evil was a virtue in God's eyes. Now it seems to have changed to the other way round.However, the only true innocents are children who do not understand, yet, the distinction of good and evil. once that knowledge is had, innocence may be claimed, but no one after that knowledge is had can legitimately claim it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@weareacouple
My understanding is that there are indeed many places where public nudity is either accepted or at the very least, turned a blind eye. Often, these are beaches or private resorts, which I'm sure you're probably aware.
Nudity was common for humans for thousands of years but as societies developed, cultural evolution's started to distinguish people's status and class such that clothing became a symbol of wealth and power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The same goes for you, I have no problem contacting the moderators again in regards to your behavior. They have assured me you will abide by the rules here, so it would be best for you to heed their warning.No, I'll wait till I get banned and then create sock puppets over and over to ask members in good standing how come they don't contribute.
Now, then gentlemen, are any of you willing to start posting something intelligent or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Guy, these discussions, as rewarding as they can be, do not merit the obsession it takes to create multiple accounts. You're a psychic now?
If you are accusing me of breaking rules here, please take it up with the moderators. Calling people out and making false accusations IS breaking the rules here. I have already been in contact with the moderators in regards to someone's extremely toxic behavior and have been assured they will be warned of that behavior. I have no problem contacting them again with you calling me out and falsely accusing me if that's what you want?
So, do yourself a service and read your cited link.
The link was provided for you as there was no logic in your posts so I took the liberty of helping you out. If you're not interested in learning how logic works, I have no problem pointing out those flaws in future posts as I have just accomplished with your false accusations.
Created:
Posted in:
Speaking of floggings, have you given up trying to contribute anything intelligent?
Created:
Posted in:
Pew Research Center says you're wrong. Maybe give them a call and straighten them out.The atheist claim that Christianity is shrinking is just semantic nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
Buddhists accept the bible, Islam accepts the bible. Even some atheists accept the bible.
"Muslims generally view these books (i.e the Bible, or parts of it) as having been corrupted, altered and interpolated over time, while maintaining that the Quran remains as the final, unchanged and preserved word of God."
Although Jesus is still a central feature of Christian atheism, Hamilton said that to the Christian atheist, Jesus as an historical or supernatural figure is not the foundation of faith; instead, Jesus is a "place to be, a standpoint".[5] Christian atheists look to Jesus as an example of what a Christian should be, but they do not see him as God, nor as the Son of God; merely as an influential rabbi.
Created:
Posted in:
In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace.
In Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019, 65% of American adults describe themselves as Christians when asked about their religion, down 12 percentage points over the past decade. Meanwhile, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population, consisting of people who describe their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” now stands at 26%, up from 17% in 2009.
Created:
Posted in:
While that may be so, it is an ad populum fallacy when used in an argument. Here's another example of that fallacy used just above.How do we know that vanilla is the most popular ice cream flavor? Because the most people prefer it.
The bible convinces more people than any other religion on Earth. It has been doing so for centuries.
Only a fool or a fake would call the bible unconvincing.
Of the 7.7 Billion people in the world, only 2.1 Billion consider the Bible convincing, a clear minority (27%) of people over the 5.6 Billion "fools or fakes"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Same to you. Here's an article for you to read, I hope it helps in your future debates.Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
The bible being convincing is evidenced by the multitude of people convinced by it. Just like the evidence of vanilla being the favorite flavor is evidenced by the majority of people who prefer it.But I'm saying what is plainly obviously true, vanilla is the clear favorite, and that is validated by the fact that most people prefer it
The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it. Saying the Bible is evidenced by the multitude of people convinced or vanilla being the favorite flavor of the majority are perfect examples of the ad poplulum fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
substantiate your claim with the submission of proof.claimants bear the burden of proof
Since you never substantiated your claims, I need not mine. I asked you to do so and you refused, now you demand proof from me. It doesn't work that way.
"there are no blue apples"
Go back and read what I actually said rather than changing what I said.
you explained nothing
I didn't need to explain, Merriam Webster did that for me.
Even if that were true
It was true.
I already told you my impressions weren't relevant
As I said, we agree.
Clearly, I am.
If you say so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm sure that's probably a joke, unless you actually believe that people can pop things into existence from their minds?That's not proof. Present your premises; present your conclusions; substantiate your premises; substantiate your conclusions.
I did not read your link
You probably should read it considering it substantiates what I said.
"there has yet to be evidence shown" not "there is no 'hard' evidence"
They are basically one and the same.
It is intransitive. So what?
I already explained, no object. You can see that for yourself in the link you provided.
You made a claim. So meet your burden of proof.
You didn't meet your burden of proof.
Furthermore, whether you consider my evidence "hard" is of no consequence. I've already informed you, your impressions don't matter.
Neither do yours. On that we agree.
I'm well versed in logic, grammar, and linguistics.
Evidently not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Prove it.
The mind does not pop things into reality. Concepts of the mind only exist within the mind.
yet remained reserved on explaining how they are independent.
That's how logic works. Claimants have the burden of proof, I provided a link for you to read.
One only needs to construct a logically consistent argument to come to the conclusion I have
I pointed out it wasn't logically consistent.
Prove it. You are making the claim "there's no 'hard' evidence for the existence of gods or spiritual beings."
There is no hard evidence, no one has ever provided any. Gods and spiritual beings are believed to be true, but that doesn't make them true.
According to Merriam Webster, to exist is to have real being whether material or spiritual.
Merriam Webster also refers to that definition as an intransitive verb; without object.
You claimed my premise was false because you counterclaimed that spiritual beings have never been shown to exist--a claim by the way, you have yet to substantiate.
You first claimed they do exist, but you did not provide hard evidence for their existence, your claim can be dismissed.
Since you're not contesting the existence of material beings, and we both accept the truth of material beings' existence, then as we are both concerned my premise remains true, even if you allege that what comes after "OR" or the alternative is false.
No, you took the definition as an intransitive verb. That was your confusion.
Created:
Posted in:
Perception of the mind to understand a concept is not the same as perception of sight or hearing.Everything we perceive MUST exist because we are incapable of perceiving the absence of information
Yes it is. Perception is existence
Sure, if I give you an apple that you can see, feel and taste with your senses, then you have perceived it to exist. That however, is not the same thing as the perception of a concept of the mind that cannot be seen, felt or tasted. They are two completely different things. You will not find the qualifier of "existence" in the definition of perception.
I already did. It is not my obligation to inform you on tautology. If you don't know what tautology is, then do your research.
While a statement may be true to it's logical conclusion, that does not lead to the existence of something. Again, you will not find any reference to existence in the definition of tautology.
Since there is no hard evidence to suggest the existence of gods or spiritual beings, then it is logical they don't exist. To claim they exist by tautology is not valid.
Created:
Posted in:
Today, humanists advocate abortion, thinking it completely justified. And I think some atheists advocate abortion without really thinking about it. They just follow the collective thought of the day that it's not murder.
Or, they take their information from medical professionals who outline the reasons for abortions.
Years from now our modern society may appear completely barbaric.
Very much in the same way we find societies in the past as completely barbaric.
But, the collective humanist thought of that time was segregation was okay. This included both religious people, and non-religious, as the humanist movement has been around since the birth of the U.S.
Humanist movements have been around for much longer than that and they did oppose the Jim Crow Laws, to no avail.
Created:
Posted in:
When you ask the typical idiot, if vanilla flavor is so bad, how come its the most popular? The idiot screams that you have committed the ad popullum fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
Submitting your impressions contribute no substance to this discussion. And I won't entertain them.
By the same token I won't entertain your contributions that lack substance. On that, we agree.
I stated that the burdens of proof were different. Once again, the burdens depend on the claims.
Nope. It doesn't matter what claim is made, the burden of proof is always on the claimant.
Evidence: God(s) is recognized and acknowledged by billions worldwide; God(s) is therefore perceived.
If one perceives of the mind, that does not equate to the existence of their subject. You are confusing perception with existence.
Actually, it does.
Prove it. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
To advocate atheism, it was understood, is to corrupt society. This was the very accusation leveled against Socrates, for which the great philosopher was forced to drink hemlock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Righteous - (of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
Created:
Posted in:
That certainly could be the case in some people, but not all. We find believers in God who are not righteous. We also find non-believers in God who are righteous and they are often the ones who lack a belief in God based on their intelligence.Many atheists are very intelligent. It is not intelligence, or a lack thereof, that leads a person to reject belief in God. It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
My answers will be and remain what they are
So far, they are non-intelligent non-answers. When you actually do provide answers and explanations to your assertions, then that may change depending on whether or not you can offer intelligent answers.
Created:
Posted in:
According to Psalm 10 we are told that the thoughts of the wicked may be summed up as “ There is no God” and “God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it” (vv. 4, 11).
What is the meaning of the bold assertion, “ There is no God”? Commentators rightly maintain that the statement is not a literal denial of the existence of God (or of gods), but a description of the wicked, who live and behave as though God takes no notice of human behavior. The respective contexts of Psalms 10, 14, and 53 support this interpretation. According to Psalm 10 the “wicked hotly pursue the poor ” and the “man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord” (vv. 2, 3). The wicked man believes that God “will never see” his evil deeds (v. 4). Moreover, this man believes that he will never encounter adversity, but will get away with theft and murder (vv. 6, 8, 9). According to Psalms 14 and 53 the man who says there is no God is corrupt, is a liar, and never does good. It is no surprise that the Apostle Paul cites portions of these psalms in order to make his point that no human is righteous and that none seeks for God (Rom 3:10–12).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I have accepted your non-intelligent answers as non-intelligent. If you would like me to change that, then explain your assertions. Making an assertion and then expecting the other party to accept it is not how it works.You are always free to accept anything as anything you like, but accept my answers you will.
No explanations are given
Then, your answers will remain non-intelligent assertions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So, whatever you say is the ultimate truth and everyone else is of no consequence?How and what you see is of no consequence.
Existence is epistemologically rational; nonexistence is not; therefore the burdens of each position are different.
No, the burden of proof is on the claimant.
the rules of logic don't conform to notions of equality.
Yes, they do.
Substantiate your allegation of falsehood.
You made the premise, you substantiate it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
The premise is true by reason of tautology. Therefore, it's not false.
The claim has no evidence to support it. Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell if this is a message from God. If God gets angry and decides to kill millions of people without telling them why he's doing it, how is anyone going to distinguish a natural crisis from a God given crisis?Perhaps God wanted to let the world know he is angry and wants them to repent of their sins and turn back to him. the world however will ignore this message just like every other one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Whatever you call my response, it was given and you will have t accept it.
No problem, I accept it as a non-intelligent response.
You didn't disagree, you were stupid.
You refused to explain why I was stupid. That would then be a personal insult.
Read my reply even more slowly.
The response continues to lack intelligence no matter how many times it's read.
Truth cannot be a fallacy.
Your response was a fallacy.
Most people require evidence.
Believing in something is not hard evidence.
And millions have been convinced over centuries.
Logical fallacies are not valid arguments.
Ad popullum is only when the truth of the argument is based on popularity
Exactly, that was your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The emboldened statements were authored by me. Should you require further explanation, let me know.
Thank you. I don't see how you showed a logical incoherence. You are applying one approach to atheists and another to theists, which IS the incoherence itself. Whether subjective or objective, the same must apply to both groups, one does not get special treatment.
All which is perceived must exist.God is perceived.
False premise, God is not perceived.
All material or spiritual beings exist.
False premise, spiritual beings have never been shown to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You either don't listen well or don't read well. I will repost my answer. Read it more slowly this time.You know its stupid. It doesn't need to be explained to you.
Repeating a non-intelligent response is still a non-intelligent response. Explanations are often standard when one disagrees. If you're unable to respond intelligently, perhaps you should move on.
You will learn that Ethan doesn't entertain stupidity.
You're offering non-intelligent responses that don't explain any stupidity on my part. Is this your entire argument?
What is your name homer?
It's not homer.
"....is not an intelligent response" seems to be your new drone. But only intelligent comments deserve intelligent responses.
I'm still waiting for an intelligent response. If you have none to offer, then why are you here?
Invoking numbers is not necessarily ad popullum Abdul.
Name calling is a sign of a weak argument and it violates the rules here, which are above if you'd like to refresh your memory. Your claim was indeed a fallacy.
Only I did not say it was true. I said many did believe.
I did not mention is was true either, I also said believe.
Ideas with no evidence do not convince millions of people from all walks of life, over centuries.
Since there is no hard evidence, then it is evident that ideas with no evidence do convince people. That same can be said for a wide variety of ideas that convince people.
Christianity was true because many believed it. I said nothing about its truth
I said nothing about truth, either.
You said it had no evidence, but the behavior of millions of people for hundreds of years has contradicted you. Evidence convinces people. You are wrong.
Yes, evidence convinces people, but so far there is no hard evidence.
Lol. You don't even know what the fallacy is.
You can explain it if you want. I certainly understand it.
I said many people found it had enough evidence to convince them. Millions.
That would the same fallacy you're invoking.
Sorry, that is stupidity. Or else stupid people would have been able to cancel all progress made by great men and women over the ages.
Sorry, but that's a Strawman fallacy.
We do have some obtuse idiots on the site who think that insisting they are not convinced means they secure a draw. It doesn't work that way, smart people do not need your agreement to eviscerate your argument.
Do smart people call other people names, do they say they are stupid without offering any explanation, do they invoke fallacies as arguments? Is that what you refer to as smart?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Nothing "sounds" reasonable; it either is or isn't. In this case, it's not; it's entirely premised on its author's proclivity for a logical incoherence.
Did you explain that logical incoherence? I may have missed that and would be happy if you pointed it out.
So then, that would undermine the atheist's position since they've made a claim they cannot prove.
Yes, I mentioned that it would be folly for an atheist, or anyone to try and prove a negative. It can only remain that atheists, or anyone would keep their minds open to any hard evidence that would be revealed.
I've already proven it twice. How one's perspective is influenced by this hard evidence is at one's discretion.
Twice? Does the world know of this hard evidence? I'm sure it would make you famous but I've not read any headlines as yet of that discovery.
You're appealing to your own incredulity, and you're not in a position to assess that which "we'd all know by now."
Wouldn't the worlds population make that assessment if hard evidence were made available?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that the internal dilemmas of some theists, often manifests as bitterness and antagonism.
I think you might have something there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You would lie. Your actions on the site prove it bothers you. No one breaks into the site over and over to post repeat stupidity unless they are bothered. Or in your case, troubled.But seeing actions in your behavior is. You have a problem "troubled man", deal with it.
I see you might have me confused for someone else, apparently the person who has already made themselves clear as to who is who, perhaps the friend you referred to earlier?
You know its stupid. It doesn't need to be explained to you.
I was under the impression that's how things worked on an open forum, a person opines on a subject while another explains why they disagree. You haven't accomplished that as yet. Can we expect some sort of explanation?
Writing is a representation of spoken language homer. Please, leave the intellectuality to people with IQ's to match.
By definition, droning is to make a continuous low humming sound or speak tediously in a dull monotonous tone. You would need to hear me. Besides that, it's still not an intelligent response unless you can explain yourself. You haven't accomplished that. In fact, you haven't offered up any explanations so far.
I did not invoke numbers homer. You did.
First of all, my name is not homer. Calling me that is not intelligent response. Yes, you did invoke numbers when you said: "I still believe in God. Millions of others still do too."
That's a common fallacy; Argumentum ad Populum, concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it.
I said millions of people find God. You say there is absolutely no evidence of God yet millions become convinced of God ever year.
Yes, that is the fallacy you invoked; Argumentum ad Populum. Unfortunately, fallacies aren't intelligent responses.
Is it not amazing to you that so many millions find enough evidence of God if there exists no evidence at all?
Once again, invoking the fallacy; Argumentum ad Populum is not an intelligent response. Offering up the hard evidence you suggest would be a more appropriate response. People believe in all kinds of things that have no hard evidence, that doesn't make any of it true.
Believers and nonbelievers do not "cancel" each other out homer. That is just stupidity you spouted.
If a person believes something and another person doesn't believe it and neither are able to prove themselves, then their opinions cancel each other out, it becomes a null argument.
He would not call me a friend
That's unfortunate. Would you call him a friend or do you call him homer as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There are still millions who do, and it seems like its the ones who do that bother you.
If they bothered me, I would have said so, but I didn't. Putting words in my mouth is not an intelligent response.
That's pretty stupid, but you are free to believe any stupid thing you want. And if the "canceled each other out" why are you here droning about the ones who do believe?
Saying something is stupid without explaining why is also not an intelligent response. If I were droning, that would mean you could hear me, how is this miracle accomplished?
So what? You don't see me droning on atheist websites that they cannot disprove God. Numbers game are just that, games.
Then why would you invoke a numbers game? Who is trying to disprove God? You?
By whom? And what would that mean?
It means one group is smaller than another. That was your argument, wasn't it? The numbers game you started?
Unfortunately for you. Christians outnumber atheists, and theists outnumber atheists. Yet here you are, on a religious board, still in a lather about people you claim should be canceled out.
Yes, that's exactly the numbers game you started. Who should be canceled out?
I tagged Willows because he's also a troubled man, I thought you two might hit it off.
Is that some friend of yours you'd like me to meet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I still believe in God. Millions of others still do too.
That is true, but there are millions who don't believe in God. The validity of a person believing in God has equal weight to a person who doesn't believe in God, so they cancel each other out.
Regarding numbers, there are about 2.1 billion Christians which would probably outnumber atheists, but compared to world population, Christians would be outnumbered.
Unfortunately, the numbers game doesn't really count. (;
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.
The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?
Yes, that sounds reasonable. I would add that for an atheist to make a claim of God's nonexistence, they'd be hard pressed to prove a negative, so it would be folly to do so. On the other hand, if a theist made the claim that God existed, they would have to provide proof in the form of some hard evidence, but I don't think that's ever been accomplished or else we'd all know it by now.
Created: