God does nor exist nor do gods exist!

Post Reply New Topic

FIrst up you seem to have a selective memory
Not forgetting your highly offensive characterization of paraplegics using speech-generating devices as "the talking wheelchair"

Secondly I am highly unlikely to ever state that we "know all there is to know" this is something usually reserved for the religious to state (in fact I and others on this forum could mount a very strong argument that this is what you are guilty of with your claim of self evident truths). Any person who claims that we know all there is to know clearly has a very limited grasp of what scientific discoveries are all about.

Thirdly you claim to have been debating against materialists for a very long time. Yet you do not seem to have grasped the idea that there is so much we do not understand, and not understanding something does not mean god did it.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 12 Dec 2014, 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Vatican have been struggling to come up to speed since before and after Galileo - science, celibacy, homosexuality and a bunch of other things notwithstanding. Big credibility gap there. Were it up to the Vatican, we would still be blood-letting instead of using antibiotics. Under their "evidence," a person with an infection or an illness was either possessed or was paying for their sins. Let's see where it goes, now that they have a progressive at the helm.

Sorry David, my stomach hurts from all this rolling laughter.

Last edited by Narrator on 12 Dec 2014, 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In ancient times, man could not conceive the notion the Copernicus model. Even the language in Genesis comes from the old flat earth ideas, with the firmament above, onto which the stars were fixed as it rotated about us. When Copernicus explained his theory, most struggled to comprehend his explanations. Modern science still suffers from the ignorance of those who can't imagine beyond the end of their noses. The idea of First Cause comes from this same ignorance.


Just as the Vatican justified barbaric rituals in healing people, because their observation of reality told them that those people were possessed.

Observation of reality appeals to simplistic observations. Why does a 3,4,5 triangle create a square corner? Simplistic answer: because it does.
Complex answer: a-squared + b-squared = c-squared is the proven formula for a right-angled triangle.
But the complex eludes you because you would rather view the thing than believe the maths.

Yet, were it not for deeply complex maths, your GPS would not work, your TV would be blank.. heck you wouldn't have any electronics at all. Ok, believe in your observations all you want, but science has had a big hand in most of what you use on a daily basis, including your ability to post here. But you're not really here, are you. This, being a product of pure and applied science, is just a devil's tool, and you wouldn't allow that.

As I've already said your religion (Materialism) is a superstitious ideology quite detached from reality and reason.

That the Catholic Church is full of humans, a few of which are quite perverse (and attract a lot of publicity in the God-hating establishment), says nothing at all about the veracity of Christian doctrine. In fact, it's only where theology is infected and corrupted with Materialism that such perversity can flourish. Such corruption has been infiltrating (no, flooding into) science and Faith for well over 200 years.

I also know quite a bit about the Galileo affair that is consistently misrepresented and used as a cudgel by the God-hating establishment to deride Faith and Reason. In short, Galileo was an arrogant, impudent twerp who presented a poor case, embellished with outrageously extravagant claims, and he went out of his way to "get up the nose" of the Inquisition and his formerly personal friend, the pope of the day. It would be a non-event if it wasn't such a convenient slogan for Christian-bashing. Until Galileo came along and gave science a bad name the Copernican model was quietly accepted in all quarters except the "scientific" establishment of the time.

Hey! Narrator. I just read what you posted as I'm writing this. I'm not at all opposed to science... it's wonderful stuff. I'm contending that you lot (Materialists) resort to make-believe "science" to bolster your ideological prejudices.

Every time you fail at making a good case, you bash on about materialists. Only got one string to your bow. Pity, could have been a worthy debate.

Oldavid, you bang on about materialist ideology and superstition, how about some resourced and credible examples. So far all you have done is state how stupid some of the great thinkers in human history are and how ridiculous we are for respecting them. So if you want some respect for thoughts, post your rationale for them. So far all we know is your ridicule of accepted knowledge, you don't even have the courage of your convictions to state clearly what it is you believe. In fact in US parlance you "took the fifth" stating that you did not want to incriminate yourself, quite a strange approach for someone so used to these debates, well it would seem strange, but maybe you have had your beliefs debunked so many times you are gun shy

So far we haven't even got the basics of a case let alone a good one. Materialism vs Realism is what this "debate" is about. I can only "bash on about Materialists" until we get down to the "nitty-gritty" of science and logic. While you fellas try to consign the matter to a mere difference of politics and opinion there can be no real debate and I'll have to keep provoking you to show your weakest of hands. I intend to show you how little and how poorly some of your "great thinkers" think. We need to get some common ground (common sense, self-evident truth) to work from. In my experience, you will avoid that by any subterfuge or distraction you can come up with because you intuitively know that you don't have a real leg to stand on... your religion is wholly sustained by deceptive half-truths and gratuitous assertions.

I don't "take the Fifth". I am not "gun shy"... here I am, a voice in the wilderness facing up to Goliath.

Gods do not exist!These documents state that it is highly unlikely for a magical mythological being to exist esspecially since there are multiple religions claiming each other religion as false!

Get as cocky as you like, little fella. I can still remember the smug arrogance of adolescent ignorance.

One of the "multiple religions" is the religion of Materialism.

I presume you are here to defend it. It is so indefensible that its proponents can resort to nothing more than fad emotive publicity.

Anyhow, do your worst, Mr Otaku.

Mr. Oldavid it says right here that you claim your god to exist while the other religious folks claim your god to be phony if that is the case all have cancelled eachother out! After all the Abrahamic religions are made up by borrowing the ideas of older more primitive ones!

This thread is now closed.

A perfect example of the gratuitous assertions that your religion needs for props for the ideology.

We are not, nor ever have been, "borrowing ideas" from the primitives. It's only in more recent times that "theologians" have been "borrowing" ideas from the resurgent primitive egomania which is called "Modernism". Modernism is nothing but Materialism in clerical garb.

Let's get down to the basics of what you can, or can not, know. There are well-proven methods for thinking and knowing... utterly incomprehensible to moderns who think that any silly fad is only countered by another silly fad.

I'll back off... too much too soon.

You want the debate to be on YOUR terms.... Ohhhh I see now. lol.

During my latter Christian days, after much theology study, logic and learning, I came to a view, entirely of my own making, my own thinking. I reasoned that God must have designed everything to be self creating, or self perpetuating, so that things evolved and became what God intended. <- That's a rather simplistic explanation for what my reasoning had come to. But it made a kind of sense that I had never heard expressed before.

Little did I know that in the short few years before my own revelation, others had published their notions of Intelligent Design (or ID). People thought I was just a follower of ID, yet I had come to a similar conclusion entirely separate from them. That didn't matter - I was being lumped into the ID camp. I actually disagreed with the ID protagonists on many details, but even that didn't matter.

What that experience highlighted for me was this. It doesn't matter how independent your thinking is, people will always file you into the same pigeon hole. And now I am being called a materialist, inferring that I have dependently adopted other people's beliefs.

Nuh-uh! If you want to make that assumption about me, then you're mind is already closed to anything I have to say. Forget it David. With your consistent and prejudicial perpetuation of your word materialist you have proven that you have firmly made up your mind.

Not interested, mate.

Overall, yes, QFT. :)

And a similar thing happened with me. :)

After all we are fractals of IT ALL. :)

Early Christianity developed in an era of the Roman Empire during which many religions were practiced. These included the Greco-Roman religions of the Roman Empire period, the Roman imperial cult and various mystery religions as well as philosophic monotheistic religions such as Neoplatonism and Gnosticism and to a lesser extent the "barbarian" tribal religions practiced on the fringes of the Empire.

It is easy and safe to conclude religions are based on make believe beings some borrowed by others and the ones borrowing the ideas of the older ones claiming the older ones as wrong! None of them mention evolution or the fossil record on how things really happened as well heck the bible says bats are birds which we all know that is incorrect.