I don't really think Wolpert's argument on the concept of cause and effect was very convincing... also, I was slightly surprised that he didn't want to use the term "god gene". Lastly, I understand his argument where he uses the fact that humans have historically given their gods human characteristics, but I don't necessarily agree with it.
I like how Wolpert here admits there is a natural belief in God embedded into our minds from birth. NATURAL, meaning not brainwashed, simply normal. As a Christian i would argue that God put this here so we all know there is a God no matter how much we deny it. And if by genetics we are more naturally inclined to believe in a God then it goes to show that it is brainwashing to teach otherwise , Atheism is brainwashing and a man made concept, But Gods presence is a natural truth within us.
He doesn't. God is immaterial. God isn't male or female. The main reason why the Bible refers to God as a "He" is to distinguish Him from the pagan goddesses of surrounding nations.
@THEEVANTHETOON No, it was part of antiquity, they call God "He" because Human males have superior authority over women (in ancient primitive societies.
@treasuredroperX well technically GOD made man and woman together, and the reason they call GOD "he" is because its more polite to refer to "him" rather than "it"
@treasuredroperX Well, I belive that the best reason at least for myself to call God "He" would be that Jesus himself has stated, "I and the FATHER are one." This showcases that if you are a beliver in the Christian faith, it is reasonable to refer to God as "Him" instead of "Her".
@Falcondick69 no im afraid your very wrong. Man and women were not created by a god. We evolved just like the rest of the animal kingdom. This is now proven science.
How can “God”, something with no mass, electric charge, weight, ability to be split, heated or cooled have a cause and effect relationship with something which contains these all of these properties? The theist not only asserts an irrational hypothetical “what”, but fails to explain a “how” or even explain if a “how” is possible.
Stating "We can't understand" is not an argument in the theists favor, because it's his understanding which is the basis of belief.
First, irrelevant in light of my second contention. Second not my point, the point is not all objective evidence is 'scientific' or even empirical. Third, oh dear.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The point is you have pretty much made a virtue out of being ignorant of the subject matter you wish to deal with. When someone even begins to make the argument that 'the Bible' is 'the Bible' as if it is one 'work' there is little point discussing any finer details with them :)
"being ignorant of the subject matter you wish to deal with. "
Projecting much?
"When someone even begins to make the argument that 'the Bible' is 'the Bible' as if it is one 'work' "
It's not that I don't know that the Bible has been assembled from parts the Church deemed right, but I fail to see the relevance, unless you can point out that that the Bible used by different main denominations is fundamentally different.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I restate, 'Oh dear.' This relates back to your earlier assertions re: the nature of the 'God of the Bible.' The point being that the 'God of the Bible' is depicted from different angles, by different people, in different areas, at different times and in no way conforms to your anthropomorphised 'war' god. To define it as such requires extremely selective reading to give a fundamentally flawed interpretation :)
"the 'God of the Bible' is depicted from different angles, by different people, in different areas, at different times"
That's one way of explaining away why the God from the Bible changes moods and personalities more often than a crack whore on speed.
"in no way conforms to your anthropomorphised 'war' god"
Aside from the the fact that this god that orders his chosen tribe to wipe out another tribe and helps them along. You know, stuff a typical war god does.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Re your first comment, whilst your choice of vocabulary is chosen to be inflammatory yes, it would account for certain variationsin the depiction of 'God.' Remember Christians do not believe in direct dictation of 'the Bible' human capacity for error is inescapable. Secondly that would be the same 'God' who taught everyone to 'love thy enemy.' Not very typically 'war-goddy.'
"it would account for certain variationsin the depiction of 'God.'"
The matter of variation is SO big that they're likely talking about different gods. It becomes even clear hat they believed other gods existed, or why else would their god be jealous of them?
"Secondly that would be the same 'God' who taught everyone to 'love thy enemy.' "
Yes, it's been known for a long time that the Bible is rife with contradictions.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Firstly, your opinion, you are welcome to it. Jealousy is portrayed in at least two lights in the Hebrew Bible. Once in reference to avoiding idol worship and another which derives from the Hebrew root QANA which means 'zealous' more properly. In the 'Moses' context they were exposed to other belief systems, this does not mean they believed them, it also deals with graven images. Secondly all the same it invalidates your cliched war god.
Anything anybody says about the Bible is mere opinion. That's why it's useless. It's not a good a historical record, it doesn't contain any proper science and it's DEFINITELY not a good guide to morality.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Ah now you want to move the goal posts. I do not need to explain that to invalidate your generalised 'war god' interpretation, which I will assume you concede as you are moving the conversation elsewhere now. Assuming you are asking for an explanation of God in the HB having aspects of a cliched war god, I will move on. Explanation? In brief 1) People were keen to say 'God did it/told us to do it' to everything 2) 'God did it' often means 'you did it to yourself.'
@MomoTheBellyDancer First accepting your 'war god' definition would be comparable to calling certain African tribes people Aardvarks because they assault ant hills for a food source. Whollistic definition based on selected traits is doomed to such inadequacy.
Second Nope, way to go with the generalised conclusions/definitions. You seem fond of this.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Firstly, that will be you conceding your definition as 'war god' to be inadequate. You use words, but dislike when they demonstrate you to be in error. Did the 'God' from the Hebrew Bible order such an act, the answer is, at best, maybe :)
Secondly it's not my fault when your own contentions fall apart with a little examination. You want a 'black and white' discussion, well too bad, nuance creeps in everywhere.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Yes, it would definitely be a waste of time for you to speak with someone who can actually use language accurately. Good use of language reflects the nuance and subtlety of thought. What you call 'word games,' a philosopher calls invalidating your argument by exposing its lack of nuance or usefulness. Consider the possibility that far from losing a 'word game,' that really all that has happened is your premise has been shown to be wrong. Peace.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Hardly, we have established that your critique lacked sufficient detail or complexity to account for the personality of 'God' as portrayed in both Hebrew and Christian Bibles. Basically I'm stating that your original contention is fundamentally flawed and as such any response to it, on its own terms, must be flawed also.
"Hardly, we have established that your critique lacked sufficient detail or complexity to account for the personality of 'God' as portrayed in both Hebrew and Christian Bibles."
No, you simply assert as much. It's all an obvious ruse to divert from my argument and to refuse answering my question. Who do you think you're fooling?
@MomoTheBellyDancer Try to understand this: You are trying to establish the absolute nature/definition of a person or object by examining a tiny subset of it's actions/presented nature. That is a fundamentally inadequate approach. Taking this analogy many animals in the world would only be classified as 'hairy' or 'furry.' This would clearly be utterly useless when trying to distinguish the actual nature of a dog, cat, seal or mammoth. Your 'war god' definition is no less useless.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually that would be the subset of the Hebrew Bible that you are familiar with. Mostly these occur around 'war' events. Contextually each nation gone to war with has been a fierce enemy of the Hebrews and exhibits horribly corrupt societies. In each case the innocent and, by extension of the rules of engagement of the time, women and children/elderly are given the chance to leave. Those who remain do so knowing the consequences. Given the chance to escape is muderous?
I find Wolpert's arguments entirely flawed by his strawman anthropomorphic 'God.' Christianty, assuming this is the basis for his line of criticism, does not propose such a deity. Christianty proposes a God who has the properties of being personal, but in no way presupposes this deity thinks, operates or exists in any way as a 'human God.'
"I find Wolpert's arguments entirely flawed by his strawman anthropomorphic 'God.' "
Which happens to be the god Craig believes in.
"Christianty, assuming this is the basis for his line of criticism, does not propose such a deity. "
The Biblical god can be angered, changes his mind, feels remorse and, above all, intense hatred against certain groups of people--all VERY human qualities.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Nope, sorry. First most of this is probably coming from a literalistic reading of the Hebrew Bible, Craig is a Christian, which has profound implications for how the Prior texts are read. Second the Christian God is believed to be 'personal' and so we should expect familiar traits. However we should not conflate 'person' with 'human.' For example if there is ever a sentient machine it will have the property of 'person' but not the property of 'human.'
"Craig is a Christian, which has profound implications for how the Prior texts are read"
So Craig is victim to bias. Thanks for clearing that one up.
"Second the Christian God is believed to be 'personal' and so we should expect familiar traits"
It's just curious how gods tend to have ALL the characteristics of the people who made them up. The god from the Bible is a war god, befitting the war-like attitude of the tribe that worshiped it.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol Bias. It's called being informed. It's very helpful when making interpretations in any field. The better informed you are, the better you are equipped to interpret. What is this 'Bible' you talk of btw? I assume you mean the Hebrew Bible, but I could be mistaken. Even then that would be a very biassed reading of those many texts :P
@MomoTheBellyDancer Sorry, it's a ridiculous criticism that Christians believe in Christianity :P With regards to your second comment I will now assume you are unfamiliar with standard Hictorical critical regard of the 'scriptures.' In general the gospels onwards are referred to as the 'Christian Bible' or CB, and Jewish scriptures previously as the 'Hebrew Bible' or HB. There is not one book called 'the Bible.'
@MomoTheBellyDancer First, I refer you to the works of Augusting, McGrath, Polkinghorne, George Coyne, Francis Collins. You may not say there is no evidence, you may however say you are not convinced by it, or you disagree with drawn conclusions.
Second, 'the Bible' is a convenient term for a collection of books. Take an anthology of works off any shelf and it will be, as an object, 'one book.' That will not in any way reduce the distinctiveness of each work/book which is collated therein.
"First, I refer you to the works of Augusting, McGrath, Polkinghorne, George Coyne, Francis Collins."
Why. Do they provide evidence for the existence of God? Do they present this evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals? If not, I'm not interested.
"Second, 'the Bible' is a convenient term for a collection of books."
The Bible is the Old plus the New Testament, period! See, you really shouldn't copy Craig's nasty habit of twisting the meaning of words.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Augustine* even. Tricksy for him to publish in Nature, I'd have said. Next you are adopting a very narrow view of what represents evidence. There is plenty of peer reviewed work on the 'God' question. Plenty of non scientific 'evidence' is presented every day in the courts, and its reality is not questioned. With regards to your second point, that is simply deliberate ignorance on your part. IT's an anthology, deal with it. Or if not, don't speak about it :P
Yes, monotheists really hate that question, since it clearly exposes one of the weakest points in their belief.
And since a lot of theists claim that universe has no purpose without a god, an even better question would be: "What would be the purpose of this god's existence?" If you can't point out any INTRINSIC purpose for this god to be there at all, how can you claim anything it does has any purpose?
God was not created. God is self-existent, outside of cause and effect entirely yet capable of affecting it by generating causes out of his own ineffable being.
I have never hated this question. It is so simple, so necessary for a prime mover, that I have to agree with ukchristian28. To assume otherwise is to assume an actual infinite in -nature-, an infinite past which brings up an entire host of problems.
So you claim. You have absolutely NOTHING to back this up.
"God is self-existent"
Why couldn't the universe itself be self-existent ? Why do you feel the need to add a superfluous layer of complexity to reality? At least we can OBSERVE the universe, which can't be said of any gods. Any claim you make concerning gods is pure conjecture.
"So you claim. You have absolutely NOTHING to back this up."
I have common sense, something which, ironically, is horribly rare.
But by that knowledge, I would have uncommon sense, and the phrase itself has now lost meaning.
Not to boast, or be proud, but let's just say I am "wise", in a world overwhelmingly dominated by fools with no hearts or ability to detect truth in the absence of materialist tripe. I could never articulate this to you in a way you'd understand (c)
"I have common sense, something which, ironically, is horribly rare."
So it's common sense to posit an invisible man in the sky, that nobody has ever seen and acts as if it not even around? And why YOUR version? Do the people who follow other religions lack common sense? But wait, when I ask them this they say YOU are the one who lacks common sense. Who should I believe?
"but let's just say I am wise"
Well, any pretense of humility went STRAIGHT out the window with this one.
Nor do I intend to. I tried, for years. You do not wish to believe in God - thus, you never will. Period. Proof or not. You'd rather die. In fact, you'd rather "burn in hell." As time, after time, after time I finally reached the core nugget of each atheist I debated, even kind, soft-spoken ones. You can only be grilled by the light of Truth long enough before you finally admit an actual desire to roast in HELL before worshiping/believing in God. You are no different.
I wonder when you'd pull this one. I hope you realize that remarks like those are the height of hubris. Don't tell me what I believe!
It's highly amusing to find yet another theist who thinks he can save face by preaching, instead of addressing the arguments of his opponents. You know who also does that when cornered? You guessed it: William Lane Craig.
I will tell you what you believe because you've become so predictable that it borders on the asinine that so many people in a world of 7,000,000,000+ could share so many of the same beliefs, quirks, and personality disorders.
Craig is far more coolheaded than me. Watch the end of this debate where Wolpert loses patience long before craig, choosing to call him ignorant, foolish, and just "nuh uh" ignorant responses. Wolpert LOST, and according to the masses who (c)
"it borders on the asinine that so many people in a world of 7,000,000,000+ could share so many of the same beliefs, quirks, and personality disorders."
All human beings share the same structure of their nervous system, so it's not so strange that they share a lot of the same behavior.
"Wolpert loses patience long before craig"
It's a standard theist tactic to taunt the opponent with so much nonsense until they lose patience. Much like you do.
"It's a standard theist tactic to taunt the opponent with so much nonsense until they lose patience. Much like you do."
*yawn* What else, come on. I mean, that's clearly old BS. Craig wasn't BSing him at all, but Wolpert is an educated fool and will get flustered when given the truth after a long enough period of time. Just like the rest of you.
It's true. Our discussion is point in case. Instead of coming up with arguments, you start PREACHING to me, for crying out loud! If that isn't a tactic to undermine my patience, I don't know what is.
Well, it was based on an opinion in the first place. I detected insinuation, you didn't, we went from there.
I responded to some other things about time, infinite pasts, etc, you tested my patience by being unable to detect even the most basic things about human speech and logic.
I endured that with a shit-eating smile on my face for 10 years. No more smile. I will give you shit and you will eat it until you realize responding to me is a waste of your time, and mine.
"I responded to some other things about time, infinite pasts, etc, you tested my patience by being unable to detect even the most basic things about human speech and logic."
I refuted your claims by pointing that they are nothing but unfounded assertions. Next thing, you're accusing me of being "against your god" and whatnot, at which point you also start preaching to me, bombarding me with the same arguments I just refuted. Get a grip.
"I endured that with a shit-eating smile on my face for 10 years."
Well, then you have more than enough training in ignoring viewpoints that don't mesh with your own. Good for you! But as soon as you spout nonsense in front of other people, you can expect them to call you out on it. That's just the way of the world.
Momo, all you've been doing this entire time is spout nonsense. Not only could you not pick up on one of the most basic insinuations of speech in the english language, you raised absurd beliefs about time, and even attacked people's Christian faith while you were here. You're garbage. Living garbage.
"all you've been doing this entire time is spout nonsense."
It's curious though how you never even ONCE managed to point that out. Instead, you started to call me names and began preaching. I'll clue you in on something: preaching ONLY works when you do it to the choir. Using it in debates against people who don't share your religion will only be met with scorn. How would you feel is somebody told you you have to accept Mohamed as god's sole messenger?
However, this is all, all too familiar. Same style of talking, same structure of mind, same focus of mentality, same ignorance to entire fields of knowledge that would illuminate your questions and pre-conceived notions if you even had half a SOUL to give them the chance.
Alas, on your lonely throne, there is no way to see it, for it "does not exist".
I got your goat when I exposed you using the standard theistic tactic of running away when the argument gets too heated. Of course, you spewing white noise and going all preacher-man on me amounts to pretty much the same.
Gets too heated? What is THIS if not chaos? Your blabber achieves nothing, glorifies nothing but yourself, and works out no problem other than serve as a vent for your deluded image of self-worth.
"serve as a vent for your deluded image of self-worth."
You say stuff like this, yet wonder why people lose their patience when talking to theists. Ad hominem attacks like these are THE way to piss people off.
view this debate, they say the same. You are in the minority, where you biased beliefs are so strong they skew the view of who acted and spoke with the most candor and logic. It was Craig, and Craig by a devastating landslide.
"It was Craig, and Craig by a devastating landslide"
I know you theists always think you win, even if you go down in flames. Craig even claims he won against Kagan, even when he got his ass kicked squarewise.
"It's really up to the masses who "won" a debate (regardless of who was right)."
This is the argumentum ad populum all over again. No, it's up to the quality of the arguments. The "masses" might be impressed by Craig's tomfoolery, but anybody who is willing to think them through sure isn't.
"And the "argumentum ad populum" is for TRUTH. I said "regardless of who was right." I've seen some of my favorite speakers lose debates to wittier atheists.
it simply can't be applied, as victory is not to who was right, but to who gave the best overall presentation as affirmed in a human's mind. The masses are used as a resource for this number, as the "minds of a few" is inherently elitist, like yourself.
""And the "argumentum ad populum" is for TRUTH. "
So, if the majority decided to worship Allah, you'll convert, right?
"I've seen some of my favorite speakers lose debates to wittier atheists."
Debates are not about who is wittier. I thought Craig was VERY witty, until I found out he was not merely impersonating a creationist but actually MEANS what he says.
Because of the overwhelming amounts of order, complexity, and apparent design. Something inherently mindless and personality-less at the highest level of meaning does not produce order, it produces what all mindless, directionless things create. Chaos. There is far too much order in this world to deny the touch of an intelligent designer for those whose hearts are wise, and can see past the limitations of material evidence. (c)
"Because of the overwhelming amounts of order, complexity, and apparent design. "
*Bzzzt* Wrong answer. Order and complexity easily arise by natural processes. And the universe merely seems to show design since human beings are pattern-seeking animals. It's a tendency we have to overcome to make any progress, and we have a method for it: science.
"Chaos"
The universe is inherently chaotic, with pockets of order arising here and there.
"*Bzzzt* Wrong answer. Order is rare. Eternally stable atomic laws, entropic laws, thermodynamic laws, and intangible yet observable mathematical laws = chaos. Mostly the universe acts in a way that cannot be predicted in any way shape or form."
That is all I read from your asinine rant. You wouldn't know order if it stabbed you in the face.
I'm mocking you. That's more or less what you're saying, saying the universe is "mostly chaos."
It's not "mostly chaos." it's just "mostly" beyond your human capability to fully compute it's order. At least I can understand it in theory. Your inability leads to a full-scale shutdown of any ability to see the universe for what it really is.
"There is far too much order in this world to deny the touch of an intelligent designer"
You mean, this world in which we could wiped out at any moment (which has almost happened once already), on a little rock which is mostly uninhabitable by human beings and where natural catastrophes continue to demand numerous lives. If there is an "intelligent designer", he surely doesn't think too highly of human beings.
Is a concept merely applicable in your religion, not outside of it. The whole concept of original sin is a highly evil, self-degrading, misanthropic idea anyway.
Oh original sin is highly evil, self-degrading, misanthropic: God hater, as I told you EARLIER, because I ALREADY KNOW YOU before you even SAID ANYTHING.
Judging by the rising frequency of your shameless hominem attacks, I really must have hit a nerve.
And no, you can't hate what you don't believe in.
"PREDICTABLE."
Well, all of the theistic stuff you keep spouting has already been refuted ages ago. Yes, I know theists keep ignoring the refutations, but that doesn't make them any less viable.
"All of the theistic stuff you keep spouting has already been refuted ages ago"
Son, this is reality, not one of your wet dreams.
"I know theists keep ignoring the refutations"
I can't ignore what doesn't exist.
I also called you a God hater, because the One True God, you find morally despicable. It's not ad hominem, this is not a "debate". It's the truth, and I'm going to say it whether you like it or not.
"Why do you feel the need to add a superfluous layer of complexity to reality?"
I am of the strong persuasion that not only is this truth not superfluous, but that all other realities or truths that could be discussed are superfluous by comparison. The highest order of meaning in the universe has never failed to express itself throughout nature with an intent, desire, and function so complex no man could ever create it, much less random chance.
"an intent, desire, and function so complex no man could ever create it, much less random chance."
If you claim that there is an intent behind the universe, YOU will have to provide evidence for it.
In any case, you'd better watch it now. You're coming dangerously close to spouting white noise, which is typical for religious types who start to lose their link to reality.
"If you claim that there is an intent behind the universe, YOU will have to provide evidence for it."
The evidence is in the order, which, I cannot be asked to spit out any more words that are true for it. What, do you want to be beaten with a book full of them? Get your head out of your ass.
NO DICE GRANDPA. Dang. It would have set a personal world record for you.
Snow flakes can be reduced to the nature of water and circumstance. I'm talking about the immutable laws of nature that have no perceivable "circumstance" necessity.
We come from two perceptions too different to see eye to eye. You claim it makes sense from your point of view, but from mine you don't make sense at all, and I do. We have two different reality tunnels, and I think we should agree to disagree.
I believe there is a train station analogy for this..in any case, no dice.
Projecting much? I am simply restating my answers each time you ignore them, hand-wave them away or respond with name-calling.
"We come from two perceptions too different to see eye to eye."
Yes, basically I try to address the issues rationally, whereas you seem to live in your own little La-La Land, where closing your ears and going "TRALALAA I can't hear you" seems to be a proper discussion style. How old are you, twelve?
"Yes, and you seem to live in YOUR little lala land, closing your eyes and going "tralalala"."
So not only are you close-minded, grating and willfully ignorant, but you're unoriginal as well. Well, that's to be expected from a Craigbot, I guess.
"Difference of opinion much?"
I wouldn't call "Godless Heathen! BURN!!" a real opinion.
"Again. Do stop attempting to converse with me, please."
And yet another theist runs away with his tail between his legs.
"And yet another theist runs away with his tail between his legs"
I find you a harassing fucktard not worthy of my time or talking to. You're not chasing me away with your cunning intellect. You're chasing me away by being an asshat.
And I''m going to tell you for the last time, nicely, to leave me alone.
"No..you keep responding to me when I ask you to leave me alone."
But I am leaving you alone. I am posting this on a public comments section and it's not like I'm sending you private messages. I also hope you realize that many people will be able to see your .. uhm ... rather off-beat responses. I personally think you're being a great example of the theistic side, damning your side better with your attitude then I ever could. Keep up the good work!
After all, to claim snowflakes are evidence of order is dangerous. You could then say "What about lava? Aids? jews?"
Thus, it is foolish. But the laws of nature have no equals, no "laws of chaos" since "law of chaos" is an OXYMORON. It's INHERENT. Order is INHERENT and perceived by the wise*.
But, that's just me trying to take you seriously. OOPS.
"You could then say "What about lava? Aids? jews?""
Those are all orderly. Lava sits nicely in blocks, HIV is able to reproduce just fine. I have no clue why you mention Jews here, though.
"the laws of nature have no equals"
The laws of nature are merely scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. As such they are not concrete entities, but products of the human mind.
Oh my, this is harassment. Do go away. :| Block does not stop comment notices. I don't agree with you, I find you shallow and unperceptive. These are ad hominem's of course, but I feel them strongly enough to feel talking to you is a waste of my time and an un-needed stress in my day.
DO stop.
"were you threatening me?"
Yes I was. =) But that doesn't really matter if you stop posting to me. Block doesn't stop comment notices. Please do go away.
That's highly ironic coming from someone whose main argument is that I'm a "God-Hater" who will "face the consequences" . Yo could of course try addressing someone's points rationally instead of preaching, name-calling or throwing hissy fits
"DO stop."
Again: YOU are the one who keeps responding to me. Are you this unreasonable in real life as well?
Out of kindness I tell you, and you proudly flutter your arms, squaking madly at the sky to tempt fate. Your feral eyes caked with the crust of your blindness, and no sooner than your act is finished does fire come out of the sky and consume you. Your feral friends, incapable of understanding cause and effect, march off to repeat your asinine mistakes, because at the end of the day you're like lemmings, all marching to their death.
Since you did not see fit to respect the request of another feeling human being to be left alone, It's fitting that you will not be left alone. Peace flocks to those whom peace is cultivated by, and is chased away by those who burn it down.
Day after day, the elements you fear and revile most will swarm to you like moths to a flame, and will erode your peace of mind until finally there is nothing left but tears and regret.
"Since you did not see fit to respect the request of another feeling human being to be left alone,"
I am leaving you alone. YOU keep posting on a public comments section.
Just. Stop. Answering. Me. Already!
"Day after day, the elements you fear and revile most will swarm to you like moths to a flame"
Have I just been ... CURSED? By a Christian? FOR REAL?? This is SO cool! This hasn't happened to me since I angered that bunch of crazy Pentecostals years back.
The only difference being I've done this to 18 people so far. 16 occurred within the week according to what I told them, because unlike many people, I have studied and understand these things to a point of practical efficiency.
You have a 0% chance of seeing a happy continuation, regardless of your questionable past experiences.
As for the further harassment, go ahead. You will be amplifying your sorrow from this point on.
"The only difference being I've done this to 18 people so far."
Ooooh.. how Christian of you. And what's with this anyway? Did Christianity turn into voodoo all of a sudden? Man, I am laughing so hard here I am almost splitting my sides. I am not even joking.
"I have studied and understand these things to a point of practical efficiency."
You're nuts. NUTS. Well, I could have guessed that from your previous responses, but this really takes the take. Priceless!
Christian is an extremely loaded word to the point of absurdity. So many superfluous beliefs added into the core-reason Christ even came that people are willing to die for, each one. I no longer subscribe to that madness.
Maybe you should have asked before making assumptions.
At any rate, I think a wall is slightly more interesting than you..if only because if it's painted white, you can at least visualize things on it.
5 minutes!? FIVE MINUTES?! THE APOCALYPSE! OH LORD...
QUICK! Communicate verbal faeces to me like you've been doing for the last hour and a half before God instigates Armageddon! >:V Only you can prevent the forest fire!
You could observe much more if you had full access to all your faculties. You willfully reject the most important, thus you are blinded, and in a trapped cycle where you the wise queen (king?) of your reality tunnel, a tunnel I have to say, is rather cramped and dark.
"Any claim you make concerning gods is pure conjecture."
Science can't even justify itself. You do not even have the first hint of what "conjecture" really is.
I don't really think Wolpert's argument on the concept of cause and effect was very convincing... also, I was slightly surprised that he didn't want to use the term "god gene". Lastly, I understand his argument where he uses the fact that humans have historically given their gods human characteristics, but I don't necessarily agree with it.
jerrygord3131 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON People believe in God for 3 reasons:
1. To deny mortality
2. To always feel they have a father figure watching over them/ loved ones, even when they are an adult/ their parents die
3. To have reason to be moral if they cannot find any other reason
These are all just "crutches" humans make up to deny the truth..
1. We are biological and our organs will wear out eventually
2. We grow up, and as we grow we have to watch loved ones die
3. Morality is only needed for social survival
theBartone9119 2 months ago
I like how Wolpert here admits there is a natural belief in God embedded into our minds from birth. NATURAL, meaning not brainwashed, simply normal. As a Christian i would argue that God put this here so we all know there is a God no matter how much we deny it. And if by genetics we are more naturally inclined to believe in a God then it goes to show that it is brainwashing to teach otherwise , Atheism is brainwashing and a man made concept, But Gods presence is a natural truth within us.
Intellectual4God 3 months ago 4
@Intellectual4God "I like how Wolpert here admits there is a natural belief in God embedded into our minds from birth. NATURAL"
I like how you admit that it's natural, because this means the supernatural didn't put it there.
theBartone9119 2 months ago 2
"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves.
Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." R.Heinlein.
Spirifiume 3 months ago
Lewis Wolpert needs to read The Master and Margarita
stevalianarbone 5 months ago
2:12
He doesn't. God is immaterial. God isn't male or female. The main reason why the Bible refers to God as a "He" is to distinguish Him from the pagan goddesses of surrounding nations.
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago 2
@THEEVANTHETOON Seriously,
It destroys his whole argument.
YourNumberOneSource 6 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON No, it was part of antiquity, they call God "He" because Human males have superior authority over women (in ancient primitive societies.
treasuredroperX 5 months ago
@treasuredroperX well technically GOD made man and woman together, and the reason they call GOD "he" is because its more polite to refer to "him" rather than "it"
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 Why not call it "She"?
treasuredroperX 4 months ago
@treasuredroperX you technically could, although its common practice now to say "he".
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@treasuredroperX Well, I belive that the best reason at least for myself to call God "He" would be that Jesus himself has stated, "I and the FATHER are one." This showcases that if you are a beliver in the Christian faith, it is reasonable to refer to God as "Him" instead of "Her".
92xtaylor 3 months ago
@Falcondick69 no im afraid your very wrong. Man and women were not created by a god. We evolved just like the rest of the animal kingdom. This is now proven science.
Brushles83 3 months ago in playlist WIlliam Lane Craig VS Lewis Wolpert
@Falcondick69 Yeah... Jesus was probably a nordic or something.
treasuredroperX 3 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON "God is immaterial"
How can “God”, something with no mass, electric charge, weight, ability to be split, heated or cooled have a cause and effect relationship with something which contains these all of these properties? The theist not only asserts an irrational hypothetical “what”, but fails to explain a “how” or even explain if a “how” is possible.
Stating "We can't understand" is not an argument in the theists favor, because it's his understanding which is the basis of belief.
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 2 months ago
Lewis Wolpert was praying / giving up supplications for a high power to help him remember he said "Oh Gosh" @ 6:57. LOL that was funny-
roadkill991000 6 months ago
First, irrelevant in light of my second contention. Second not my point, the point is not all objective evidence is 'scientific' or even empirical. Third, oh dear.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"Third, oh dear."
You know, give me me a sign when you're starting to make sense. This is becoming very tedious very fast.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The point is you have pretty much made a virtue out of being ignorant of the subject matter you wish to deal with. When someone even begins to make the argument that 'the Bible' is 'the Bible' as if it is one 'work' there is little point discussing any finer details with them :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"being ignorant of the subject matter you wish to deal with. "
Projecting much?
"When someone even begins to make the argument that 'the Bible' is 'the Bible' as if it is one 'work' "
It's not that I don't know that the Bible has been assembled from parts the Church deemed right, but I fail to see the relevance, unless you can point out that that the Bible used by different main denominations is fundamentally different.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I restate, 'Oh dear.' This relates back to your earlier assertions re: the nature of the 'God of the Bible.' The point being that the 'God of the Bible' is depicted from different angles, by different people, in different areas, at different times and in no way conforms to your anthropomorphised 'war' god. To define it as such requires extremely selective reading to give a fundamentally flawed interpretation :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"the 'God of the Bible' is depicted from different angles, by different people, in different areas, at different times"
That's one way of explaining away why the God from the Bible changes moods and personalities more often than a crack whore on speed.
"in no way conforms to your anthropomorphised 'war' god"
Aside from the the fact that this god that orders his chosen tribe to wipe out another tribe and helps them along. You know, stuff a typical war god does.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Re your first comment, whilst your choice of vocabulary is chosen to be inflammatory yes, it would account for certain variationsin the depiction of 'God.' Remember Christians do not believe in direct dictation of 'the Bible' human capacity for error is inescapable. Secondly that would be the same 'God' who taught everyone to 'love thy enemy.' Not very typically 'war-goddy.'
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"it would account for certain variationsin the depiction of 'God.'"
The matter of variation is SO big that they're likely talking about different gods. It becomes even clear hat they believed other gods existed, or why else would their god be jealous of them?
"Secondly that would be the same 'God' who taught everyone to 'love thy enemy.' "
Yes, it's been known for a long time that the Bible is rife with contradictions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Firstly, your opinion, you are welcome to it. Jealousy is portrayed in at least two lights in the Hebrew Bible. Once in reference to avoiding idol worship and another which derives from the Hebrew root QANA which means 'zealous' more properly. In the 'Moses' context they were exposed to other belief systems, this does not mean they believed them, it also deals with graven images. Secondly all the same it invalidates your cliched war god.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"Firstly, your opinion, you are welcome to it"
Anything anybody says about the Bible is mere opinion. That's why it's useless. It's not a good a historical record, it doesn't contain any proper science and it's DEFINITELY not a good guide to morality.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"Secondly all the same it invalidates your cliched war god."
Then explain all the atrocities committed under order of that god, as spelled out in the Old Testament. You keep ignoring this, and I wonder why.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Ah now you want to move the goal posts. I do not need to explain that to invalidate your generalised 'war god' interpretation, which I will assume you concede as you are moving the conversation elsewhere now. Assuming you are asking for an explanation of God in the HB having aspects of a cliched war god, I will move on. Explanation? In brief 1) People were keen to say 'God did it/told us to do it' to everything 2) 'God did it' often means 'you did it to yourself.'
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"I do not need to explain that to invalidate your generalised 'war god' interpretation"
Even when I point out the war-god behavior of the god in question? That's highly disingenuous.
"People were keen to say 'God did it/told us to do it' to everything "
So you're now claiming yourself that the Bible is not talking about a real god? We're getting somewhere.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer First accepting your 'war god' definition would be comparable to calling certain African tribes people Aardvarks because they assault ant hills for a food source. Whollistic definition based on selected traits is doomed to such inadequacy.
Second Nope, way to go with the generalised conclusions/definitions. You seem fond of this.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"Whollistic definition based on selected traits is doomed to such inadequacy."
Now you're just playing silly word games. Did the god from the Bible order his people to commit genocide? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
"way to go with the generalised conclusions/definitions. "
The thing is that I am not getting any concrete answers from you. It's like punching a blob of jelly. Stop evading my questions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Firstly, that will be you conceding your definition as 'war god' to be inadequate. You use words, but dislike when they demonstrate you to be in error. Did the 'God' from the Hebrew Bible order such an act, the answer is, at best, maybe :)
Secondly it's not my fault when your own contentions fall apart with a little examination. You want a 'black and white' discussion, well too bad, nuance creeps in everywhere.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"Firstly, that will be you conceding your definition as 'war god' to be inadequate."
Whatever. I see I am wasting my time with you, so you'll have to look for someone else to play word games with.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Yes, it would definitely be a waste of time for you to speak with someone who can actually use language accurately. Good use of language reflects the nuance and subtlety of thought. What you call 'word games,' a philosopher calls invalidating your argument by exposing its lack of nuance or usefulness. Consider the possibility that far from losing a 'word game,' that really all that has happened is your premise has been shown to be wrong. Peace.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"What you call 'word games,' a philosopher calls invalidating your argument by exposing its lack of nuance or usefulness."
You only invalidate my argument by showing that I am incorrect in stating that the god of the Bible commanded his people to wage war on other people.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Hardly, we have established that your critique lacked sufficient detail or complexity to account for the personality of 'God' as portrayed in both Hebrew and Christian Bibles. Basically I'm stating that your original contention is fundamentally flawed and as such any response to it, on its own terms, must be flawed also.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"Hardly, we have established that your critique lacked sufficient detail or complexity to account for the personality of 'God' as portrayed in both Hebrew and Christian Bibles."
No, you simply assert as much. It's all an obvious ruse to divert from my argument and to refuse answering my question. Who do you think you're fooling?
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Try to understand this: You are trying to establish the absolute nature/definition of a person or object by examining a tiny subset of it's actions/presented nature. That is a fundamentally inadequate approach. Taking this analogy many animals in the world would only be classified as 'hairy' or 'furry.' This would clearly be utterly useless when trying to distinguish the actual nature of a dog, cat, seal or mammoth. Your 'war god' definition is no less useless.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"You are trying to establish the absolute nature/definition of a person or object by examining a tiny subset of it's actions/presented nature."
I wouldn't call the aggressive tendencies of the Biblical god a "tiny subset", seeing how a large deal of the OT deals with exactly that aspect.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually that would be the subset of the Hebrew Bible that you are familiar with. Mostly these occur around 'war' events. Contextually each nation gone to war with has been a fierce enemy of the Hebrews and exhibits horribly corrupt societies. In each case the innocent and, by extension of the rules of engagement of the time, women and children/elderly are given the chance to leave. Those who remain do so knowing the consequences. Given the chance to escape is muderous?
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrWildbill20056
"horribly corrupt societies."
Says who? Labeling your enemy as sub-human is a common tactic to get your side to perform atrocious acts.
"In each case the innocent and, by extension of the rules of engagement of the time, women and children/elderly are given the chance to leave."
No, god explicitly commands his people to murder and pillage all of the other people.
But at least you're admitting it's in there. It's progress, I guess.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
I find Wolpert's arguments entirely flawed by his strawman anthropomorphic 'God.' Christianty, assuming this is the basis for his line of criticism, does not propose such a deity. Christianty proposes a God who has the properties of being personal, but in no way presupposes this deity thinks, operates or exists in any way as a 'human God.'
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"I find Wolpert's arguments entirely flawed by his strawman anthropomorphic 'God.' "
Which happens to be the god Craig believes in.
"Christianty, assuming this is the basis for his line of criticism, does not propose such a deity. "
The Biblical god can be angered, changes his mind, feels remorse and, above all, intense hatred against certain groups of people--all VERY human qualities.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago 2
@MomoTheBellyDancer Nope, sorry. First most of this is probably coming from a literalistic reading of the Hebrew Bible, Craig is a Christian, which has profound implications for how the Prior texts are read. Second the Christian God is believed to be 'personal' and so we should expect familiar traits. However we should not conflate 'person' with 'human.' For example if there is ever a sentient machine it will have the property of 'person' but not the property of 'human.'
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"Craig is a Christian, which has profound implications for how the Prior texts are read"
So Craig is victim to bias. Thanks for clearing that one up.
"Second the Christian God is believed to be 'personal' and so we should expect familiar traits"
It's just curious how gods tend to have ALL the characteristics of the people who made them up. The god from the Bible is a war god, befitting the war-like attitude of the tribe that worshiped it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Lol Bias. It's called being informed. It's very helpful when making interpretations in any field. The better informed you are, the better you are equipped to interpret. What is this 'Bible' you talk of btw? I assume you mean the Hebrew Bible, but I could be mistaken. Even then that would be a very biassed reading of those many texts :P
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"It's called being informed. "
Being informed only about things that confirm your beliefs is a prime example of biased thinking. Craig doesn't show he knows much outside of it.
"assume you mean the Hebrew Bible, but I could be mistaken."
The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Sorry, it's a ridiculous criticism that Christians believe in Christianity :P With regards to your second comment I will now assume you are unfamiliar with standard Hictorical critical regard of the 'scriptures.' In general the gospels onwards are referred to as the 'Christian Bible' or CB, and Jewish scriptures previously as the 'Hebrew Bible' or HB. There is not one book called 'the Bible.'
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"it's a ridiculous criticism that Christians believe in Christianity"
It starts becoming ridiculous once they start claiming that the Christian claims are objectively true.
"There is not one book called 'the Bible.'"
Okay, let's tell that to all the Bible shops. "Rip 'em up!"
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer First, seeing as you argue by assertion, I shall too: I disagree with your first statement. Second: erm, whatever you say buddy.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"First, seeing as you argue by assertion, I shall too: I disagree with your first statement."
Are you claiming Christian claims are objectively true? If so, show it. For starters you might want to provide evidence for the existence of God.
"Second: erm, whatever you say buddy."
Last time I checked the Bible still contained both the Old and the New testament.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer First, I refer you to the works of Augusting, McGrath, Polkinghorne, George Coyne, Francis Collins. You may not say there is no evidence, you may however say you are not convinced by it, or you disagree with drawn conclusions.
Second, 'the Bible' is a convenient term for a collection of books. Take an anthology of works off any shelf and it will be, as an object, 'one book.' That will not in any way reduce the distinctiveness of each work/book which is collated therein.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"First, I refer you to the works of Augusting, McGrath, Polkinghorne, George Coyne, Francis Collins."
Why. Do they provide evidence for the existence of God? Do they present this evidence in peer-reviewed scientific journals? If not, I'm not interested.
"Second, 'the Bible' is a convenient term for a collection of books."
The Bible is the Old plus the New Testament, period! See, you really shouldn't copy Craig's nasty habit of twisting the meaning of words.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Augustine* even. Tricksy for him to publish in Nature, I'd have said. Next you are adopting a very narrow view of what represents evidence. There is plenty of peer reviewed work on the 'God' question. Plenty of non scientific 'evidence' is presented every day in the courts, and its reality is not questioned. With regards to your second point, that is simply deliberate ignorance on your part. IT's an anthology, deal with it. Or if not, don't speak about it :P
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056
"There is plenty of peer reviewed work on the 'God' question. "
Not in scientific journals.
"Plenty of non scientific 'evidence' is presented every day in the courts, and its reality is not questioned."
The evidence for the existence for any god would be waved away as insubstantial by any court.
"IT's an anthology, deal with it."
Indeed. So what? It doesn't make any difference.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
uff wolpert had horrible arguments, I felt sad for him.
signofthehammer 7 months ago
"Who created God"? For crying out loud. I thought this guy was supposed to be some kind of sophisticated thinker.
ukchristian28 8 months ago
@ukchristian28
""Who created God"? "
Yes, monotheists really hate that question, since it clearly exposes one of the weakest points in their belief.
And since a lot of theists claim that universe has no purpose without a god, an even better question would be: "What would be the purpose of this god's existence?" If you can't point out any INTRINSIC purpose for this god to be there at all, how can you claim anything it does has any purpose?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
God was not created. God is self-existent, outside of cause and effect entirely yet capable of affecting it by generating causes out of his own ineffable being.
I have never hated this question. It is so simple, so necessary for a prime mover, that I have to agree with ukchristian28. To assume otherwise is to assume an actual infinite in -nature-, an infinite past which brings up an entire host of problems.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"God was not created."
So you claim. You have absolutely NOTHING to back this up.
"God is self-existent"
Why couldn't the universe itself be self-existent ? Why do you feel the need to add a superfluous layer of complexity to reality? At least we can OBSERVE the universe, which can't be said of any gods. Any claim you make concerning gods is pure conjecture.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"So you claim. You have absolutely NOTHING to back this up."
I have common sense, something which, ironically, is horribly rare.
But by that knowledge, I would have uncommon sense, and the phrase itself has now lost meaning.
Not to boast, or be proud, but let's just say I am "wise", in a world overwhelmingly dominated by fools with no hearts or ability to detect truth in the absence of materialist tripe. I could never articulate this to you in a way you'd understand (c)
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"I have common sense, something which, ironically, is horribly rare."
So it's common sense to posit an invisible man in the sky, that nobody has ever seen and acts as if it not even around? And why YOUR version? Do the people who follow other religions lack common sense? But wait, when I ask them this they say YOU are the one who lacks common sense. Who should I believe?
"but let's just say I am wise"
Well, any pretense of humility went STRAIGHT out the window with this one.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
(c)
Nor do I intend to. I tried, for years. You do not wish to believe in God - thus, you never will. Period. Proof or not. You'd rather die. In fact, you'd rather "burn in hell." As time, after time, after time I finally reached the core nugget of each atheist I debated, even kind, soft-spoken ones. You can only be grilled by the light of Truth long enough before you finally admit an actual desire to roast in HELL before worshiping/believing in God. You are no different.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"You do not wish to believe in God"
I wonder when you'd pull this one. I hope you realize that remarks like those are the height of hubris. Don't tell me what I believe!
It's highly amusing to find yet another theist who thinks he can save face by preaching, instead of addressing the arguments of his opponents. You know who also does that when cornered? You guessed it: William Lane Craig.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I will tell you what you believe because you've become so predictable that it borders on the asinine that so many people in a world of 7,000,000,000+ could share so many of the same beliefs, quirks, and personality disorders.
Craig is far more coolheaded than me. Watch the end of this debate where Wolpert loses patience long before craig, choosing to call him ignorant, foolish, and just "nuh uh" ignorant responses. Wolpert LOST, and according to the masses who (c)
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"it borders on the asinine that so many people in a world of 7,000,000,000+ could share so many of the same beliefs, quirks, and personality disorders."
All human beings share the same structure of their nervous system, so it's not so strange that they share a lot of the same behavior.
"Wolpert loses patience long before craig"
It's a standard theist tactic to taunt the opponent with so much nonsense until they lose patience. Much like you do.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"It's a standard theist tactic to taunt the opponent with so much nonsense until they lose patience. Much like you do."
*yawn* What else, come on. I mean, that's clearly old BS. Craig wasn't BSing him at all, but Wolpert is an educated fool and will get flustered when given the truth after a long enough period of time. Just like the rest of you.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"*yawn* What else, come on. "
It's true. Our discussion is point in case. Instead of coming up with arguments, you start PREACHING to me, for crying out loud! If that isn't a tactic to undermine my patience, I don't know what is.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Well, it was based on an opinion in the first place. I detected insinuation, you didn't, we went from there.
I responded to some other things about time, infinite pasts, etc, you tested my patience by being unable to detect even the most basic things about human speech and logic.
I endured that with a shit-eating smile on my face for 10 years. No more smile. I will give you shit and you will eat it until you realize responding to me is a waste of your time, and mine.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"I responded to some other things about time, infinite pasts, etc, you tested my patience by being unable to detect even the most basic things about human speech and logic."
I refuted your claims by pointing that they are nothing but unfounded assertions. Next thing, you're accusing me of being "against your god" and whatnot, at which point you also start preaching to me, bombarding me with the same arguments I just refuted. Get a grip.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Oh here we go, a golden shower of misinformation and warped logic. PRAISE GOD.
You didn't refute shit. You babbled. Next.
"
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"I endured that with a shit-eating smile on my face for 10 years."
Well, then you have more than enough training in ignoring viewpoints that don't mesh with your own. Good for you! But as soon as you spout nonsense in front of other people, you can expect them to call you out on it. That's just the way of the world.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Momo, all you've been doing this entire time is spout nonsense. Not only could you not pick up on one of the most basic insinuations of speech in the english language, you raised absurd beliefs about time, and even attacked people's Christian faith while you were here. You're garbage. Living garbage.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"all you've been doing this entire time is spout nonsense."
It's curious though how you never even ONCE managed to point that out. Instead, you started to call me names and began preaching. I'll clue you in on something: preaching ONLY works when you do it to the choir. Using it in debates against people who don't share your religion will only be met with scorn. How would you feel is somebody told you you have to accept Mohamed as god's sole messenger?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"even attacked people's Christian faith while you were here. You're garbage. Living garbage. "
Calling me names will only me and anybody else reading this exchange give the impression that I am justified in my attacks. Way to go!
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
However, this is all, all too familiar. Same style of talking, same structure of mind, same focus of mentality, same ignorance to entire fields of knowledge that would illuminate your questions and pre-conceived notions if you even had half a SOUL to give them the chance.
Alas, on your lonely throne, there is no way to see it, for it "does not exist".
So ask me why I'm still talking :|
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"So ask me why I'm still talking :|"
I got your goat when I exposed you using the standard theistic tactic of running away when the argument gets too heated. Of course, you spewing white noise and going all preacher-man on me amounts to pretty much the same.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You're gonna get far more than my "goat".
Gets too heated? What is THIS if not chaos? Your blabber achieves nothing, glorifies nothing but yourself, and works out no problem other than serve as a vent for your deluded image of self-worth.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"serve as a vent for your deluded image of self-worth."
You say stuff like this, yet wonder why people lose their patience when talking to theists. Ad hominem attacks like these are THE way to piss people off.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
(c)
view this debate, they say the same. You are in the minority, where you biased beliefs are so strong they skew the view of who acted and spoke with the most candor and logic. It was Craig, and Craig by a devastating landslide.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"You are in the minority"
Aha, the old argumentum ad populum. How quaint.
"It was Craig, and Craig by a devastating landslide"
I know you theists always think you win, even if you go down in flames. Craig even claims he won against Kagan, even when he got his ass kicked squarewise.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
It's really up to the masses who "won" a debate (regardless of who was right).
Wolpert acted like a total ass near the end who couldn't even comprehend Craig let alone respond intelligently to him. So sorry.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"It's really up to the masses who "won" a debate (regardless of who was right)."
This is the argumentum ad populum all over again. No, it's up to the quality of the arguments. The "masses" might be impressed by Craig's tomfoolery, but anybody who is willing to think them through sure isn't.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"The "masses" might be impressed by Craig's tomfoolery, but anybody who is willing to think them through sure isn't. "
And I assume you can think them through? But nobody else can. You're special.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
So, please. Say some more stupid shit for me to shit on. Cuz that's how we're going to spend our day, right?
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"So, please. Say some more stupid shit for me to shit on."
All I see is someone smearing shit all over himself.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"All I see is someone smearing shit all over himself. "
I didn't know looking at yourself in a mirror did it for you. What is that? Auto-sexual?
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Alllmost there..5 minutes....can you RESIST the urge to respond? God, nobody knows! NO ONE SAVE THE FATHER IN HEAVEN.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"And I assume you can think them through?"
Anybody can, provided they:
1) have a functioning brain
2) are willing to use it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
1) you are plumb out of luck.
2) NOPE.
I think the masses might have something on you!
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"I think the masses might have something on you!"
Not as long as the majority beliefs in stuff without any evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"And the "argumentum ad populum" is for TRUTH. I said "regardless of who was right." I've seen some of my favorite speakers lose debates to wittier atheists.
it simply can't be applied, as victory is not to who was right, but to who gave the best overall presentation as affirmed in a human's mind. The masses are used as a resource for this number, as the "minds of a few" is inherently elitist, like yourself.
So, no. Craig won. Devastatingly, won.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
""And the "argumentum ad populum" is for TRUTH. "
So, if the majority decided to worship Allah, you'll convert, right?
"I've seen some of my favorite speakers lose debates to wittier atheists."
Debates are not about who is wittier. I thought Craig was VERY witty, until I found out he was not merely impersonating a creationist but actually MEANS what he says.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"So if the majority decided to worship Allah, you'll convert, right?"
Allah is just the Arabic word for God. I already worship Allah,God, Deus, etc etc.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"Allah is just the Arabic word for God."
Just go to Iran and proclaim this in a mosque, I dare you.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Why couldn't the universe be self-existent?"
Because of the overwhelming amounts of order, complexity, and apparent design. Something inherently mindless and personality-less at the highest level of meaning does not produce order, it produces what all mindless, directionless things create. Chaos. There is far too much order in this world to deny the touch of an intelligent designer for those whose hearts are wise, and can see past the limitations of material evidence. (c)
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Because of the overwhelming amounts of order, complexity, and apparent design. "
*Bzzzt* Wrong answer. Order and complexity easily arise by natural processes. And the universe merely seems to show design since human beings are pattern-seeking animals. It's a tendency we have to overcome to make any progress, and we have a method for it: science.
"Chaos"
The universe is inherently chaotic, with pockets of order arising here and there.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"*Bzzzt* Wrong answer. Order is rare. Eternally stable atomic laws, entropic laws, thermodynamic laws, and intangible yet observable mathematical laws = chaos. Mostly the universe acts in a way that cannot be predicted in any way shape or form."
That is all I read from your asinine rant. You wouldn't know order if it stabbed you in the face.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Eternally stable atomic laws, entropic laws, thermodynamic laws, and intangible yet observable mathematical laws = chaos. "
No, that's order. Don't get them mixed up now.
"Mostly the universe acts in a way that cannot be predicted in any way shape or form."
Wait, weren't you just singing the praise of the universe's orderliness just a few minutes ago? Which is it now?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I'm mocking you. That's more or less what you're saying, saying the universe is "mostly chaos."
It's not "mostly chaos." it's just "mostly" beyond your human capability to fully compute it's order. At least I can understand it in theory. Your inability leads to a full-scale shutdown of any ability to see the universe for what it really is.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"I'm mocking you. "
No, you were serious.
"It's not "mostly chaos." "
Yes, it is. At the quantum level it's a VERY chaotic place. What we see in the macro scale is but a tiny part of the whole universe.
"Your inability leads to a full-scale shutdown of any ability to see the universe for what it really is"
Stop it with the ad hominem attacks already.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"There is far too much order in this world to deny the touch of an intelligent designer"
You mean, this world in which we could wiped out at any moment (which has almost happened once already), on a little rock which is mostly uninhabitable by human beings and where natural catastrophes continue to demand numerous lives. If there is an "intelligent designer", he surely doesn't think too highly of human beings.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"could be wiped out"
Yet hasn't, and continues not to be. No point in saying that.
"(invokes pain and suffering)"
So? Maybe God is evil. Oh, you're targeting the christian God.
Sin. Man did it to himself, sin infects, changes, and mutates the universe and even natural laws. God made us steward. Easy. next.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Maybe God is evil. "
Maybe he just doesn't exist.
"Oh, you're targeting the christian God."
All gods look the same to me: NOT THERE.
"Sin. "
Is a concept merely applicable in your religion, not outside of it. The whole concept of original sin is a highly evil, self-degrading, misanthropic idea anyway.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Oh original sin is highly evil, self-degrading, misanthropic: God hater, as I told you EARLIER, because I ALREADY KNOW YOU before you even SAID ANYTHING.
PREDICTABLE.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"God hater"
Judging by the rising frequency of your shameless hominem attacks, I really must have hit a nerve.
And no, you can't hate what you don't believe in.
"PREDICTABLE."
Well, all of the theistic stuff you keep spouting has already been refuted ages ago. Yes, I know theists keep ignoring the refutations, but that doesn't make them any less viable.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"All of the theistic stuff you keep spouting has already been refuted ages ago"
Son, this is reality, not one of your wet dreams.
"I know theists keep ignoring the refutations"
I can't ignore what doesn't exist.
I also called you a God hater, because the One True God, you find morally despicable. It's not ad hominem, this is not a "debate". It's the truth, and I'm going to say it whether you like it or not.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Son, this is reality, not one of your wet dreams."
No matter how you'd like your god to exist, he simply doesn't. Reality doesn't have to bend to your wishes.
"because the One True God, you find morally despicable."
So ordering people to wipe out entire tribes, slaughtering their babies and raping their women is morally acceptable?
"It's the truth, and I'm going to say it whether you like it or not."
And every time you say it I'll to call you out on your vile lie.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Well, "Get on with it!" Momo. The shit train isn't out of gas yet, I'd wager.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Why do you feel the need to add a superfluous layer of complexity to reality?"
I am of the strong persuasion that not only is this truth not superfluous, but that all other realities or truths that could be discussed are superfluous by comparison. The highest order of meaning in the universe has never failed to express itself throughout nature with an intent, desire, and function so complex no man could ever create it, much less random chance.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"an intent, desire, and function so complex no man could ever create it, much less random chance."
If you claim that there is an intent behind the universe, YOU will have to provide evidence for it.
In any case, you'd better watch it now. You're coming dangerously close to spouting white noise, which is typical for religious types who start to lose their link to reality.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"If you claim that there is an intent behind the universe, YOU will have to provide evidence for it."
The evidence is in the order, which, I cannot be asked to spit out any more words that are true for it. What, do you want to be beaten with a book full of them? Get your head out of your ass.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"The evidence is in the order"
So you are claiming every snow crystal is created with intent, since they're so orderly?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
NO DICE GRANDPA. Dang. It would have set a personal world record for you.
Snow flakes can be reduced to the nature of water and circumstance. I'm talking about the immutable laws of nature that have no perceivable "circumstance" necessity.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Snow flakes can be reduced to the nature of water and circumstance"
In similar fashion, EVERY process in the universe can be reduced to physical and chemical reactions.
"immutable laws of nature that have no perceivable "circumstance" necessity."
We don't know whether they're mutable or not, or whether they have any kind of "necessity", whatever that mean. They just are what they are.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Do stop talking to me.
You're extremely repetitious and annoying. :(
We come from two perceptions too different to see eye to eye. You claim it makes sense from your point of view, but from mine you don't make sense at all, and I do. We have two different reality tunnels, and I think we should agree to disagree.
I believe there is a train station analogy for this..in any case, no dice.
Stop attempting to converse with me, please.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"You're extremely repetitious and annoying. "
Projecting much? I am simply restating my answers each time you ignore them, hand-wave them away or respond with name-calling.
"We come from two perceptions too different to see eye to eye."
Yes, basically I try to address the issues rationally, whereas you seem to live in your own little La-La Land, where closing your ears and going "TRALALAA I can't hear you" seems to be a proper discussion style. How old are you, twelve?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Yes, and you seem to live in YOUR little lala land, closing your eyes and going "tralalala".
Difference of opinion much? And you can't do a damn thing about it.
Again. Do stop attempting to converse with me, please.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Yes, and you seem to live in YOUR little lala land, closing your eyes and going "tralalala"."
So not only are you close-minded, grating and willfully ignorant, but you're unoriginal as well. Well, that's to be expected from a Craigbot, I guess.
"Difference of opinion much?"
I wouldn't call "Godless Heathen! BURN!!" a real opinion.
"Again. Do stop attempting to converse with me, please."
And yet another theist runs away with his tail between his legs.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"And yet another theist runs away with his tail between his legs"
I find you a harassing fucktard not worthy of my time or talking to. You're not chasing me away with your cunning intellect. You're chasing me away by being an asshat.
And I''m going to tell you for the last time, nicely, to leave me alone.
I suggest you do so.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"I find you a harassing fucktard not worthy of my time or talking to"
Translation: "WHAAA! How dare you come with rational responses to my ranting, raving and preaching!"
"You're chasing me away by being an asshat."
Please point out how I was being an "asshat". All I did was challenge your contentions while deflecting your attempts at preaching.
"I''m going to tell you for the last time, nicely, to leave me alone."
YOU are the one who keeps responding.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"I find you a harassing fucktard not worthy of my time or talking to"
Translation: "I find you a harassing fucktard not worthy of my time or talking to."
No dice. Learn english.
"YOU are the one who keeps responding."
No..you keep responding to me when I ask you to leave me alone. It means, leave me alone. Go away. Do not post back.
Again, do not converse with me.
Ok? I want you to not respond to this. Leave me alone = Leave me alone. Do not post back.
Bye.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"No..you keep responding to me when I ask you to leave me alone."
But I am leaving you alone. I am posting this on a public comments section and it's not like I'm sending you private messages. I also hope you realize that many people will be able to see your .. uhm ... rather off-beat responses. I personally think you're being a great example of the theistic side, damning your side better with your attitude then I ever could. Keep up the good work!
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago 2
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Leave me alone. Stop posting to me.
English. Leave me alone requires an answer of ..nothing. No post back. Nothing. I cannot block your comment notices.
Go away. As for damning my side, I don't really care, and I am the wrong audience to target with that kind of statement.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"As for damning my side, I don't really care, and I am the wrong audience to target with that kind of statement."
Well, ain't THAT the truth!
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
After all, to claim snowflakes are evidence of order is dangerous. You could then say "What about lava? Aids? jews?"
Thus, it is foolish. But the laws of nature have no equals, no "laws of chaos" since "law of chaos" is an OXYMORON. It's INHERENT. Order is INHERENT and perceived by the wise*.
But, that's just me trying to take you seriously. OOPS.
*: Souls who can hear Truth** and follow it.
**: Voice of God***
***: The entity you loathe most.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"You could then say "What about lava? Aids? jews?""
Those are all orderly. Lava sits nicely in blocks, HIV is able to reproduce just fine. I have no clue why you mention Jews here, though.
"the laws of nature have no equals"
The laws of nature are merely scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior. As such they are not concrete entities, but products of the human mind.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
""laws of chaos" since "law of chaos" is an OXYMORON."
Boy, looks like someone needs a primer in chaos theory.
"Order is INHERENT and perceived by the wise"
All order is deduced empirically.
"*: Souls who can hear Truth** and follow it."
Give an exact description of how such a "soul" functions and perceives "truth", whatever that may be.
"**: Voice of God***"
Please point out where this "god" has its vocal cords.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Oh my, this is harassment. Do go away. :| Block does not stop comment notices. I don't agree with you, I find you shallow and unperceptive. These are ad hominem's of course, but I feel them strongly enough to feel talking to you is a waste of my time and an un-needed stress in my day.
DO stop.
"were you threatening me?"
Yes I was. =) But that doesn't really matter if you stop posting to me. Block doesn't stop comment notices. Please do go away.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"I find you shallow and unperceptive."
That's highly ironic coming from someone whose main argument is that I'm a "God-Hater" who will "face the consequences" . Yo could of course try addressing someone's points rationally instead of preaching, name-calling or throwing hissy fits
"DO stop."
Again: YOU are the one who keeps responding to me. Are you this unreasonable in real life as well?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop.
After this, I will teach you why you should stop in the only language human beings understand.
This is a grace to you, that I do not tolerate harassment and I deal harshly with it.
Be wise and leave me alone. Please.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop."
Why don't you realize that you could, like, just stop responding to me?
"This is a grace to you, that I do not tolerate harassment and I deal harshly with it."
OOhh... cool! Can you let your god send lightning my way? I always love it when a bolt hits my lightning rod.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Why are you people so much like lemmings.
Out of kindness I tell you, and you proudly flutter your arms, squaking madly at the sky to tempt fate. Your feral eyes caked with the crust of your blindness, and no sooner than your act is finished does fire come out of the sky and consume you. Your feral friends, incapable of understanding cause and effect, march off to repeat your asinine mistakes, because at the end of the day you're like lemmings, all marching to their death.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Why are you people so much like lemmings."
You're calling me cuddly and fuzzy? That's sweet, but we haven't known each other for that long!
"Your feral friends"
Hey, first you called us lemmings. Make up your mind!
"all marching to their death."
You DO know that the "lemmings marching to their death" is just a myth right? Oh wait, of course you don't. You'll believe anything that's on TV.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Since you did not see fit to respect the request of another feeling human being to be left alone, It's fitting that you will not be left alone. Peace flocks to those whom peace is cultivated by, and is chased away by those who burn it down.
Day after day, the elements you fear and revile most will swarm to you like moths to a flame, and will erode your peace of mind until finally there is nothing left but tears and regret.
I believe only then will you learn.
Goodbye.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"Since you did not see fit to respect the request of another feeling human being to be left alone,"
I am leaving you alone. YOU keep posting on a public comments section.
Just. Stop. Answering. Me. Already!
"Day after day, the elements you fear and revile most will swarm to you like moths to a flame"
Have I just been ... CURSED? By a Christian? FOR REAL?? This is SO cool! This hasn't happened to me since I angered that bunch of crazy Pentecostals years back.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
The only difference being I've done this to 18 people so far. 16 occurred within the week according to what I told them, because unlike many people, I have studied and understand these things to a point of practical efficiency.
You have a 0% chance of seeing a happy continuation, regardless of your questionable past experiences.
As for the further harassment, go ahead. You will be amplifying your sorrow from this point on.
Knock yourself out.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"The only difference being I've done this to 18 people so far."
Ooooh.. how Christian of you. And what's with this anyway? Did Christianity turn into voodoo all of a sudden? Man, I am laughing so hard here I am almost splitting my sides. I am not even joking.
"I have studied and understand these things to a point of practical efficiency."
You're nuts. NUTS. Well, I could have guessed that from your previous responses, but this really takes the take. Priceless!
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I'm a Christian?
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"I'm a Christian?"
You're not? Aww.. and here I thought I was being cursed by a Christian. What a bummer. Well, it's better than nothing, I guess.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Christian is an extremely loaded word to the point of absurdity. So many superfluous beliefs added into the core-reason Christ even came that people are willing to die for, each one. I no longer subscribe to that madness.
Maybe you should have asked before making assumptions.
At any rate, I think a wall is slightly more interesting than you..if only because if it's painted white, you can at least visualize things on it.
Good luck with your new life.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"I think a wall is slightly more interesting than you"
Well, at least a wall won't be able to make fun of you, that's for sure. Enjoy your madness and the voices in your head.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"You're nuts. NUTS."
Yes, maybe a little. And you're fucked. FUCKED.
I opt for the former, the latter sounds painful.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"And you're fucked. FUCKED."
Oh hell, stop it, or your curse might indeed come true... with me, dying from LAUGHTER. I am totally losing my breath here. Hilarious.
Thank you for giving me a good time, just when I thought you were just another boring Christbot. Kudos to you!
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
5 minutes!? FIVE MINUTES?! THE APOCALYPSE! OH LORD...
QUICK! Communicate verbal faeces to me like you've been doing for the last hour and a half before God instigates Armageddon! >:V Only you can prevent the forest fire!
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
And with that, I've heard third time's a charm. Good day.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"You're coming dangerously close to spouting white noise."
When you said "*Bzzzt* wrong answer" you were coming dangerously close to something even worse, with lasting consequences. I guess we're even now.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"When you said "*Bzzzt* wrong answer" you were coming dangerously close to something even worse, with lasting consequences."
What lasting consequences? Are you threatening me?
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"At least we can OBSERVE the universe."
You could observe much more if you had full access to all your faculties. You willfully reject the most important, thus you are blinded, and in a trapped cycle where you the wise queen (king?) of your reality tunnel, a tunnel I have to say, is rather cramped and dark.
"Any claim you make concerning gods is pure conjecture."
Science can't even justify itself. You do not even have the first hint of what "conjecture" really is.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
@MorpheusOmikron
"You could observe much more if you had full access to all your faculties."
That's nothing but an unveiled ad hominem attack.
"Science can't even justify itself."
Which is highly ironic coming from someone who uses a product of science to post on the Internet. Wow. Just ... wow!
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Oh no, God forbid I use a computer. Somehow, that makes the statement "Science can't justify itself" hypocritical or untrue. Grow a brain.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"Oh no, God forbid I use a computer. Somehow, that makes the statement "Science can't justify itself" hypocritical or untrue."
Science is the process that made the computer you're using right now possible. WHen you claim science doesn't work, you're being a damn hypocrite.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Good lord, if you were going to respond to all my posts you could at least do so in the order they were posted.
MorpheusOmikron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorpheusOmikron
"Good lord, if you were going to respond to all my posts you could at least do so in the order they were posted."
Your posts make little sense no matter in what order you post them.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago