Thread: An extaordinary tirade. Really quite brilliant.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

exactly, nicely said.

Fuck me. Butterfly's agreed with me. I may have to review my opinions

Originally Posted by Dan

Originally Posted by Butterfly

exactly, nicely said.

Fuck me. Butterfly's agreed with me. I may have to review my opinions

Just your gender dress style.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Would you take it equally serious if it was a billion people believing they where Napoleon ?

They don't so it's a stupid, pointless question.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

f I was so inclined I could criticise all those "fucking morons" shedding blood all over the world because of something that only exists in their fantasy, and I sure that at least some of the people dying don't find it just "tedious" but pretty fucking awful, that they have to die because of ancient untrue beliefs, but I wont today,

Sure. Criticise people for having wars. That's good, and obviously some wars have been fought for religious reasons but a fuck of a lot more have been fought for very different reasons. And also, when you're doing that, don't forget to praise religious pacifists.

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Atheism is a religion, a religion that believe that God doesn't exist, which is of course based on faith rather than facts

OK, my head just assploded, have you completely lost it?

How on earth can you claim that atheism is based on faith? For me atheism is based on the rejection of faith in favour of more reliable methods that explain the world around us.

Now, I know you are next going to accuse me of having 'faith' in science, but that argument is fallacious because it is elevating 'science' to a level that it does not attempt to occupy.

Do I have faith in 'science'? No.
Do I believe that the 'scientific method' is currently the best way of exploring, describing and explaining the world around me? Hell ( ) yes! And from my observations it makes a lot more sense than any religious twaddle

Are you a scientologist or something?

Actually Butterfly is right, there is no more proof there is no God as there is proof to his existence, there are many ,as,you who claim there is no God, but like you none can show absolute proof.

Originally Posted by slackula

it is a decision made in the complete absence of anything contradictory.

a decision on beliefs, regardless. You can't be absolute sure that is the case. So at the end, in absence of reality, it's still a belief.

Originally Posted by slackula

Your phrase of 'mere observations' is quite telling as you are asking the atheists to prove a negative which cannot be done: show me proof that I do not have a pink unicorn living in the cabinet under my kitchen sink.

mainly because it's based on your wild imagination, so the probability of it being real is none. That can't be said of the existence of the universe and therefore a God, whatever shape it might have. We call it god, but it could be simply the beginning of a simple cause and effects events, hence the origin of everything. In ancient philosophy, God were thought to be at the origin of a cause and effect chain reaction. Hence, he was the first instance of that chain. It's a simplistic view of god, yet still valid, and could be closer to the truth than other definitions of God.

Originally Posted by slackula

Can you show me one shred of evidence that proves the existence of any 'god', I don't care what religion or sect he/she/it is? I thought not.

again you are bringing religion into it, you can't understand such a definition if there is one if you keep dragging religion into it. If science could identify physical elements in the universe at the origin of its creation, would that be enough evidence that such a thing as God exist ?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

there is no more proof there is no God as there is proof to his existence, there are many ,as,you who claim there is no God, but like you none can show absolute proof.

Are you asking me to prove that something doesn't exist?!??! Seriously ?!??!

Do you have any clue as to the meaning of the word?

There is simply zero proof that a god exists. As I stated in my last post, prove to me that I do not have a pink unicorn living in my kitchen; until you can do that your arguments have no merit.

You are claiming something exists, I am saying "great" show it to me! You and your ilk can't do that therefore I reject its existence until proof is provided.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

If science could identify physical elements in the universe at the origin of its creation, would that be enough evidence that such a thing as God exist ?

No, it would be proof that those things exist, nothing more and nothing less. Extrapolating that god exists because I have a tree in my garden or a particle or from a physical force is utterly ludicrous.

When islam speaks you lot quack in your boots...cowards...

Originally Posted by slackula

therefore I reject its existence until proof is provided.

as ridiculous as the religious zealots who reject Science

Originally Posted by slackula

No, it would be proof that those things exist, nothing more and nothing less. Extrapolating that god exists because I have a tree in my garden or a particle or from a physical force is utterly ludicrous.

not really. The very definition of God is about the origin of the universe, the existence of matter, the existence of the physical world. If that creates the universe as we know it, then it's technically God.

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by RPETER65

there is no more proof there is no God as there is proof to his existence, there are many ,as,you who claim there is no God, but like you none can show absolute proof.

Are you asking me to prove that something doesn't exist?!??! Seriously ?!??!

Do you have any clue as to the meaning of the word?

There is simply zero proof that a god exists. As I stated in my last post, prove to me that I do not have a pink unicorn living in my kitchen; until you can do that your arguments have no merit.

You are claiming something exists, I am saying "great" show it to me! You and your ilk can't do that therefore I reject its existence until proof is provided.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

If science could identify physical elements in the universe at the origin of its creation, would that be enough evidence that such a thing as God exist ?

No, it would be proof that those things exist, nothing more and nothing less. Extrapolating that god exists because I have a tree in my garden or a particle or from a physical force is utterly ludicrous.

You in your finite mind can say that God does not exist, and you can reject anything you want but just because you reject the existence of God does not make it so, I agree for you there is no God, but you can no more disprove his existence than I can prove he boes exist.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The very definition of God is about the origin of the universe

Really? Then explain to me all the other shite that is attributed to gods elsewhere. Which one created the universe and which one decided what we can and cannot do? The rules of your gods keep changing

the existence of matter, the existence of the physical world. If that creates the universe as we know it, then it's technically God.

Put down your bong for a few minutes and read what you just wrote.
The existence of matter proves the existence of matter, nothing more and nothing less. You might as well claim that the existence of matter proves that santa claus and leprechauns exist.

Retreating into semantics by using phrases like "technically God" is idiotic; prove to me that one of your gods exist or STFU and GTFO.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You in your finite mind can say that God does not exist, and you can reject anything you want but just because you reject the existence of God does not make it so, I agree for you there is no God, but you can no more disprove his existence than I can prove he boes exist.

*sigh*

I don't need to disprove that god exists any more than I need to disprove that I have unicorns living in my kitchen.

You that claim god does exist need to show the proof to support your claims. Show me something (anything) that shows the existence of a god (any god one will do, let's not be picky).



ps: I don't accept an image of a guy on a slice of toast sold to a casino as proof of the existence of god

Originally Posted by slackula

Then explain to me all the other shite that is attributed to gods elsewhere.

I don't and it's irrelevant as you are referring to religions, again you keep confusing those two concepts.

Originally Posted by slackula

The existence of matter proves the existence of matter, nothing more and nothing less.

you need to read again what I wrote. I said at the origin for the existence of matter, nothing more, nothing less. You are not being logical

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You are not being logical

You are claiming that something that nobody has ever seen actually does exist and accusing me of not being logical?

Whoa!

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You are not being logical

You are claiming that something that nobody has ever seen actually does exist and accusing me of not being logical?

Whoa!

Dude, consider who you are 'arguing' with? Butterfly.

He's playing on words, and evading common frames of reference, by equating 'god' with 'existence' or 'the universe'.

The point being is that he's claiming 'the universe' exists, thus by his frame of reference, does 'god'.

Unfortunately for him, there is absolutely no proof for the existence of the universe, or even for our own existence - the old 'cogito ergo sum' which he appears to rely on is entirely not trustworthy, as any of our perceptions are fraught with uncertainties.

Hence, as there is no proof for the existence of existence, and thus no proof for the existence of the universe, there is no proof for the existence of god, and thus, there is no god. Quite simple, really.

There's a more cogent and direct proof, but he's too dumb to comprehend or grasp it, so discussing it here would be pointless.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Unfortunately for him, there is absolutely no proof for the existence of the universe, or even for our own existence - the old 'cogito ergo sum' which he appears to rely on is entirely not trustworthy, as any of our perceptions are fraught with uncertainties.

good one, Quack Quack, you are now starting to get the spirit of it, technically there is no proof that the universe exists and therefore we exist. I am probably not even typing this as we speak

Descartes tried the exercise of "Je pense donc je suis" because technically the only thing you couldn't deny was the existence that very exercise of thinking it through.

Daffney is the centre of the universe....did'nt you know ??

Originally Posted by Nawty

"Je pense donc je suis"

Oh my. Follows then, far too many TD members do not exist.

Originally Posted by Dan

Christopher Hitchens is - nowadays - a right-wing shitbag, though this might not be completely relevant to his views on religion. What's a bit more relevant is that the new atheism of Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennett etc is fucking tedious, especially that smug little git Dawkins. What a cock.

Yes Dawkins can be tedious at times and he really is a bit of an egomaniac, but his general message is correct, even if he muddies it at times.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Blame the environment you were exposed to as a child.

He's French, cut him some slack™

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Dude, consider who you are 'arguing' with? Butterfly.

*sigh* yeah, I know, but it is fun watching his mental contortionist act sometimes.

Did any of you actually listen to the man?

I'm intrigued.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

butterfly, there is no evidence for god, only faith. Faith is a human construct, felt by those who worship. Feelings by their very nature are illogical and irrational.

well, yeah we all have faith in something, you are no exception, you just can't put your finger into it

The evidence of God existence can only be shown through mathematical logic, not physics.

The existence of such evidence doesn't necessarily mean we can understand it, even when it's there.