Prove there's a god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773027 Aug 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Try reading what I wrote. I didn't say that "no god belief is a god belief".
I wrote atheists have a god belief. The belief is that no god exists. Atheism is not "having no belief". It is a belief concerning god. So it is a god belief which happens to be opposite of the god belief held by theists.
No, that is not what atheism is.

How many times do you want to go around and around this semantic circle? I am not going to change my usage of the word "atheist" to accommodate you. Your choices are to eventually learn what I mean when I use the word, or to post your preferred meaning every time I use the word. I assure you that you will accomplish nothing constructive if you choose the latter.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#773028 Aug 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed something in physics class.
The part where transfinite math does not represent physical reality.
Did they not tell you that?
For instance, did they tell you there is no such thing as an infinite donut?
Or that an apple doesn't really fall through infinite distances from the tree to the ground?
As if there wasn't enough isms in the world along comes Buck with his religion of Finitism.

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#773029 Aug 24, 2014
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
I challenged you to a debate and you spazzed out bro.
http://i.imgur.com/q7GP9wf.jpg
When did you challenge me to a debate bro? I spazzed out? Funny, all I see is avoidance from you? Now again, how are you trying to help me? Can you find the debate challenge post? I will debate dude.. I never saw a challenge ..IF there was one..lol

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#773030 Aug 24, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, it is another lying, deceptive, snake/serpent. I never admitted to anything of the sort and I won't, because I am neither of those things.
When the white missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.
– Desmond Tutu

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773031 Aug 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
"Atheist". You are skirting the issue by phrasing your position as "not positively asserting that no god exists". This avoids the crux of the matter, which is belief. Anyone who "believes" that no god exists, if judicious, will not assert positively that no god exists, because this implies certainty of knowledge. Belief is not certain knowledge. My assessment is that you believe, or are convinced, that no god exists. But you refrain from exaggerating this to imply that you possess certainty of knowledge that it is, in fact, the case that no god exists. It is a testament to intellectual honesty that you refrain from the certainty of knowledge claim. But I think the categorization of this view to something other than atheism is,...dare I say,...pedantic. You are a plain ole' atheist, I-man. At least this is my belief.
Evidence based beliefs and knowledge are not unrelated. Knowledge is a reliable belief. Beliefs commensurate with the quantity and quality of available evidence are partial knowledge, and are at times extremely reliable even if not perfectly so. It is the ability of a belief to inform action and produce expected outcomes that determines its truth value. I believe that my car will start this afternoon. I have made plans that depend on it. The expected outcome is arriving at Fred and Donna's home for bridge and dinner. I'll bet that happens.

Beliefs based on faith alone are not knowledge at all. They cannot be relied on to produce expected outcomes.

You can use whatever language you prefer to describe the following, my position on the matter: If a god exists, I don't expect to ever know that that is true. I might be wrong, which is what makes it less than (certain) knowledge, and I know that, which is why I am properly called agnostic.

I feel the same way about gods as I do about vampires and leprechauns. I don't expect to ever encounter any of them. I call my position on each of these atheism, avampirism, and aleprechaunism.

Is there any value in rehashing this so many time?

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#773032 Aug 24, 2014
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to google a response as I know that Autism has nothing whatsoever to do with Atheism.
The term "pull this apart", does not mean "response".
When I have the time, I'll teach you what it means. Be patient, I'm told it's a virtue.
I never really said Autism has something to do with Atheism.. I said there seems to be a higher ratio of autistic people who are Atheist.. Meaning... percentage wise or ratio.. More atheist are autistic than ones having faith. There is a higher incidence of atheist with autism, specifically Asperger’s, than in the rest of the population. Why? More than likely due to concrete thinking and “reasoning” skills required. You know, the word you atheist like to throw around a lot... Which actually means reasoning skills are lacking rather than improved. My whole point, but you totally missed it... Although, I am not surprised..

Boy they nailed that on TV's Big Bang Theory with Shelton..
http://a.tgcdn.net/images/products/additional...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773033 Aug 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
...one word is sufficient.
Who are you and what have you done with Buck?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#773034 Aug 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
As if there wasn't enough isms in the world along comes Buck with his religion of Finitism.
That's what its about with Buck. I thought everyone knew.

He needs to retain the infinite, both in reality and conceptually, for his deity concept to make sense to him, in whatever way it is he's built his deity belief to be.

Noun: Buckdaveism 'buk,dey-vee-izum
1.A cult like belief originated by two individuals{citation needed}that profess various forms of woo woo doctrines and a mixture of fringe science incorporating; Intelligent Design, Marlboro cigarettes, EM,:*¨`*The Unknown*¨`*:, paper clips, Universal Logic™, Jesusism, the Magnetonomicron, "energies", monoliths, beer, swine, "thingies", sippy box wine, and a cat.

The belief is primarily focused on an(*)insubstantial and invisible birdlike god being that resides outside of time and space in eternity or infinity. http://www.buckdaveism.com

(*)see also - http://www.thedavenelson.com or http://www.criminalpigfarmer.com

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773035 Aug 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
What? And miss out on this scintillating reproshma with you?
Is that "rapprochement" misspelled?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#773036 Aug 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence based beliefs and knowledge are not unrelated. Knowledge is a reliable belief. Beliefs commensurate with the quantity and quality of available evidence are partial knowledge, and are at times extremely reliable even if not perfectly so. It is the ability of a belief to inform action and produce expected outcomes that determines its truth value. I believe that my car will start this afternoon. I have made plans that depend on it. The expected outcome is arriving at Fred and Donna's home for bridge and dinner. I'll bet that happens.
Beliefs based on faith alone are not knowledge at all. They cannot be relied on to produce expected outcomes.
You can use whatever language you prefer to describe the following, my position on the matter: If a god exists, I don't expect to ever know that that is true. I might be wrong, which is what makes it less than (certain) knowledge, and I know that, which is why I am properly called agnostic.
I feel the same way about gods as I do about vampires and leprechauns. I don't expect to ever encounter any of them. I call my position on each of these atheism, avampirism, and aleprechaunism.
Is there any value in rehashing this so many time?
I'm not really sure what religionists are trying to do with the entire "atheism is a religion" claim.

Are they trying to bring us down to their level or bring themselves up to ours?

Is religion something that people can't escape no matter what the opinion is that they hold, because others in religion declare they must have a religion too? As if; to ever have even thought about it and formed an opinion one way or another automatically qualifies as a religion. If atheism isn't the antithesis of a religion or theistic deity belief - then what is?

It's like NASCAR fans and enthusiasts saying that people who don't believe NASCAR is a great sport are still NASCAR fans because they don't believe NASCAR is a great sport like NASCAR fans do. It's almost as if they're so wrapped up in NASCAR that they can't fathom the idea that someone wouldn't believe what they believe.

So everyone must be fans, even if they are the antithesis of fans.

And if you were to ask; Why should I believe NASCAR is a great sport?

The reply:

"Just look around you, isn't it obvious?"

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#773037 Aug 24, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
Susie,
Ptag stands for Prove there's a God and she is not and will never try to help you. Great posts.
I guess he has not noticed I have been here longer. I just do not make this my life and stay each and EVERY day..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773038 Aug 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"Fraction" implies division. You cannot represent a finite part of an infinite set as a fraction of the whole ... The whole numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on without limit. The natural numbers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on without limit. The two sets are each infinite, and are identical apart from the number zero, which is one element of the set of whole numbers. We could say that either set can be created from the other by the addition or subtraction of one element, which is adding or subtracting a finite set to or from an infinite set and generating another infinite set.
Buck Crick wrote:
A part of an infinite is not finite. It is infinite - always. When you refer to any portion of an alleged infinite path, you are referring to a fraction, or a division of that path, which is always infinite. It doesn't matter if you say you are subtracting it or adding it or doing nothing with it. It is still a part of the path. I am not "taking it out" when I refer to the portion as infinite. I am referring to it.
So when we refer to a portion of the alleged path as traversing one revolution of the alleged donut, the one revolution is necessarily an infinite path. This requires an infinite donut.
The difference between the set of whole numbers and the set of natural numbers, both of which are infinite, is the integer zero. The subset of numbers contained in the one but not the other is finite. Do you disagree? Did you want to tell me that a set with one element in it has an infinite number of elements?
Buck Crick wrote:
Numbers are different in that they are acknowledged as abstractions.
Let the numbers represent the lap number of an infinite journey around and around the circuit.
Buck Crick wrote:
Conversely, you are alleging your path is physically real.
A specified path can be physically real. It is a locus of locations and dimensions. The path is no more imaginary than space or time.
Buck Crick wrote:
Besides, set theory institutes rules to avoid the contradiction of your alleged infinite path. Such accommodations are not allowed with physical phenomenon, like your alleged path. Another way to prove it is imaginary.
Please be more specific. What rules are those, and how do they relate to your claim or mine?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773039 Aug 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Of course, if nano is invoking Poe's law, she is conceding that Joyful may actually be as dumb, gullible, foolish, and asinine as she appears to be. The brilliance of Poes' law is the slap it delivers. No amount of stupidity, however extreme it may be, however much it may suggest a parody, is necessarily an act.
curiouslu wrote:
What a frightful concept, logic like that has no place here.
LOL.

I thought that I was being kind limiting the description to intellectual deficits. Most of her shortcomings are character flaws (passive-aggressive, false accusations, indolent, quick to anger, narcissistic, verbally abusive, and too proud to admit error or apologize).

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#773040 Aug 24, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not really sure what religionists are trying to do with the entire "atheism is a religion" claim.
Are they trying to bring us down to their level or bring themselves up to ours?
Is religion something that people can't escape no matter what the opinion is that they hold, because others in religion declare they must have a religion too? As if; to ever have even thought about it and formed an opinion one way or another automatically qualifies as a religion. If atheism isn't the antithesis of a religion or theistic deity belief - then what is?
It's like NASCAR fans and enthusiasts saying that people who don't believe NASCAR is a great sport are still NASCAR fans because they don't believe NASCAR is a great sport like NASCAR fans do. It's almost as if they're so wrapped up in NASCAR that they can't fathom the idea that someone wouldn't believe what they believe.
So everyone must be fans, even if they are the antithesis of fans.
And if you were to ask; Why should I believe NASCAR is a great sport?
The reply:
"Just look around you, isn't it obvious?"
Why is atheism a religion? Ask the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religi...
re-li-gion
[ri-lij-uh n] Spell Syllables
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

Everything an atheist post has to do with science relation to .".a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" You can take out the ..especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances,".. because the word especially suggest faith but is not needed.. if it had the words exclude or except those who do no have a belief in superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances then you would be excused as a religion, but those words are not in there... most atheist their way of life "contains a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Definition 2# Atheist do have.... specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: No God is a belief and as you guys like to point out, your numbers are rising. There are different sects of atheism. And there is even a building and now they are even organized.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/22/atheism_start...

And you really wonder why Christians and other religions think atheist are a "religious?"

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773041 Aug 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Did you catch where Hukt agreed that a physical infinite is not possible, and the universe is not infinite?
Yes. Did you catch where he said that he's not an authority and doesn't know if he is right?
Buck Crick wrote:
Smart guy on physics. That's 3 of us now, including Dave Nelson. The list grows slowly.
Adding Dave Nelson to your list is not an endorsement.

On an unrelated note, here's something from an email that I received recently that I liked very much:

"It is an utterly false claim that science and religion are compatible. They are not. They never have been and never can be. Historically, religion does not tolerate disagreement. Such people were called heretics and were burned at the stake.

"On the other hand, in science, there was the example of a British scientist, cited by Richard Dawkins, who was elderly and had worked the last 15 years on an idea to which he had been devoted. Then an American arrived to speak before an audience of students and professors and read a paper that completely negated the old professor's 15 years of work.

"The old British professor came forward and thanked the American for finally proving him wrong. The audience erupted into such vigorous applause that some said the applause nearly caused their hands to bleed. Such a love of science and knowledge that the old professor demonstrated, completely sublimating his ego and many years of work, and those who applauded him, is virtually unknown in religion. It took the Catholic Church about 400 years to admit that Galileo was right and the Church had been wrong. But it was done quietly, with no applause. And I don't think the Church deserved any applause for their official, dogmatic centuries-long pursuit of ignorance.

"Science depends on evidence. Religion depends on lack of evidence (faith). Science is self-correcting, faith is self-perpetuating. Never the twain shall meet. At least, I hope not."

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#773042 Aug 24, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The difference between the set of whole numbers and the set of natural numbers, both of which are infinite, is the integer zero. The subset of numbers contained in the one but not the other is finite. Do you disagree? Did you want to tell me that a set with one element in it has an infinite number of elements?
<quoted text>
Let the numbers represent the lap number of an infinite journey around and around the circuit.
<quoted text>
A specified path can be physically real. It is a locus of locations and dimensions. The path is no more imaginary than space or time.
<quoted text>
Please be more specific. What rules are those, and how do they relate to your claim or mine?
His scope completely denies a future event can be counted.
He has defined time ....as time passed.
In his philosophy calenders are useless, and a clock can only define a second, after it had past.
Seconds don't exist until they have been recorded.
So the journey of an electron or proton around a nucleus is only past tense, which is a really strange conception, considering it takes about .00000000000000000000150th or 150 quintillionth's of a second to complete a circuit or that it makes 150,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them a second. 150 quintillion rps
According to his philosophy we cant calculate them but one circuit at the time.
But it's pretty easy to see in calculating them even if they have a finite lifespan , that during their spin life the circuit is 150 attoseconds--------->8

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773043 Aug 24, 2014
dirty white boy- wrote:
You seem to think one of faith is just looking for God and is therefor discreditable, when they should be looking at science as a tool to further their faith. Science is a great tool. One should see it as a way of furthering communication between the two.
Coincidentally, my last post addresses the relationship between faith and science.
dirty white boy- wrote:
I don't think it's as much as them not believing in science as it is them having faith in God. I am sure they're are some notable religious astronomers and physics right? That have it down to just as much science as not, wouldn't you? And they are, they don't let faith blind them, that's why they be notable.
You can't do science properly if your faith based ideas cause you to do it differently than somebody using pure reason applied to evidence. You must compartmentalize faith and keep it out of the process.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773044 Aug 24, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I thought it would seem more dramatic to say "escaped" rather than "walked away". More like a McGuyver thing.
LOL. Did you just walk out the door too?

“I love Jesus”

Since: Dec 08

Heaven, but Earthbound for now

#773045 Aug 24, 2014
curiouslu wrote:
<quoted text>
Your analogy sucks and you need to format your writing in a way that makes people not just scroll past it.
You've been trying to insult me since you got to ptag, using your present user name. You just don't do it very well is all, I'm trying to help you so quit hissing at me.
Okay little man, now that I know what ptag is, take a good LONG look at the dates.. You came to ptag on Dec 12, 2012.. Me December 8, 2008. 4 years before you dude.

I was here first, so your wording is incorrect. However, you're the one who has been trying to insult me since YOU got to ptag. I am not hissing at you either..
(in an innocent voice)
I am just trying to help you :)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#773046 Aug 24, 2014
atheism is destructive wrote:
Again, evidence that atheists think in evil terms and act out crimes due to their selfishness and personal agendas. Thanks for sharing one of your sources of ignorance with us. No wonder you atheists are confused and angry. I see you still have to be in a support group to maintain your ignorant atheism. It proves atheism is a religion.
What a waste of carbon you are. You would have more value if you were subducted beneath the sea floor and converted to oil.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 25 min Michael 670,589
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 31 min emperorjohn 445,675
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 39 min Joe Fortuna 101,326
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 49 min Sky Writer 31 184,324
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Rob Ford Jr 286,265
Ted Bundy's Daughter (Jul '14) 3 hr Poppy _36 6
I love you sister Joyce Meyer 6 hr lightbeamrider 2
More from around the web