Your point is??? — god must be atheist

That the new religion is science. By law you must learn that Book on school.

Where can you buy that motor? — EugeneW

Yeah, I want one, too. I walked into the local dildo shop but they said come back next week, the shipment is late from China, due to Covid.

That the new religion is science. By law you must learn that Book on school. — EugeneW

but what you say does not follow from what you claim. Time to go to bed, and come back tomorrow.

By the missionaries, and by the industrialists of the nineteenth century. — god must be atheist

Who got there because of the scientific imperative of discovering new worlds. Columbus was a child of the Enlightenment.

Where can you buy that motor? — EugeneW

Look thou in thy wicked Darwinian heart where Jesus guzzles kerosine on a throne made of chocolate and fingernail clippings.

That the new religion is science — EugeneW

That is only true from the perspective of a truly uneducated person.

If you agree that belief requires no proof, and that relgious faith is a form of belief;
And if you agree (which you can't, seeing you have no education in science) that scientific teachings are not a matter of belief but a matter of knowledge based on evidence;
Then and only then you must agree that science is not religion; neither new, nor old religion, since religion is based on faith, and science is based on knowledge.

But since you don't know anything scientific, you look at it from the outside, and you don't understand it; therefore to you the body of science appears to be a body of faith. But it is not. The body of science is a body of accumulated knowledge.

Look thou in thy wicked Darwinian heart where Jesus guzzles kerosine on a throne made of chocolate and fingernail clippings — lll

:lol:

Damned you! You made me spill my coffee!

I walked into the local dildo shop but they said come back next week, the shipment is late from China, due to Covid. — god must be atheist

All anyone really needs is a traffic cone, a bicycle chain, and a pound of unsalted butter.

Damned you! You made me spill my coffee! — EugeneW

I'm laughing too. I love that you took that in the proper spirit.

.

That is only true from the perspective of a truly uneducated person. — god must be atheist

I have a physics theory about the universe. And that's exactly the reason to believe!

It's CONVINCING enough for you, but philosophically it's not proof. Proof on the philosophical level is universal. If it's proof for you, then it's not proof for everyone. Therefore it's not universal. Therefore it's not philosophical. So I would humbly like to ask you to not use the word proof when in conversation about philosophy unless you mean a philosophical proof. Thanks. — god must be atheist

:up: God, does He exist for everybody or for only a select few (the chosen ones)? There's nothing impossible or inconsistent about that, right?

Proving God doesn't exist is quite easy. Consider God a (scientific) hypothesis, it'll entail certain observables. Forgive me Laplace!

A simple disproof of god follows:

1. If God exists then there should be no evil.
2. There is evil.
Ergo,
3. God doesn't exist [1, 2 MT]

(My thanks go out to @180 Proof)

Ik ben de penis van God voor wie er geen regels zijn. — lll

De penis van God ejaculeert het heilig ejaculaat aan de bron van het universum, het heilig Erect. Het Heilig Erect is eeuwig. Het Heilig Ejaculaat periodiek. Wij zijn spermatozoen in het Heilig Ejaculaat.

A simple disproof of god follows:

1. If God exists then there should be no evil. — Agent Smith

A false and evil assumption... For some they exist, for others they don't. They deny reality though and row their boat in a meaningless universe.

Indeed! Another story I've heard (perhaps the most believable of kosmic very tails) is: De wereld schiet uit de schreeuwende anus van Jezus Christus.

There he sad with cheers porn out his ice.

More seriously, Theologie is zelf de God die het descibes. Also De mensheid schiep God als een spiegel en een vleider.

Goddamnit III, you're on a roll! Gonna drink my coffee later... Misschien zijn we per ongeluk in bestaan geruft door voetballende goden of zwetende douchers...

Nice! That inspires this hypothesis: We zijn vlekken in de luiers van drooling reuzen.

Ik ben de penis van God voor wie er geen regels zijn.
— lll

De penis van God ejaculeert het heilig ejaculaat aan de bron van het universum, het heilig Erect. Het Heilig Erect is eeuwig. Het Heilig Ejaculaat periodiek. Wij zijn spermatozoen in het Heilig Ejaculaat — EugeneW

Speaking in tongues (glossolalia). Looks like you're about to shut down your brain's language center or maybe you're hyperclocking? :up: Do keep us posted about your journey!

Right! Which makes one wonder:

Kan het zijn dat de kwijlende reuzen iets verkeerds gegeten hebben?

Some! Proof of free will?

Some! Proof of free will? — Agent Smith

If mama giant made them eat, it's proof of an unfree will. Poor babies!

If mama giant made them eat, it's proof of an unfree will. Poor babies! — EugeneW

:ok:

lll
111 — lll

III matches 111 rather nicely.

If mama giant made them eat, it's proof of an unfree will. Poor babies! — EugeneW

Sweet lord Jesus... Where has the philosophical debate on free will come to? Not to mention this thread which is about proof of atheism, which clearly can't be given.

In the valley of the gods in Utah, the atheist can find counter proof of their unholy assumption.

The only reason I mention the word "theist" is out of respect for the thread (which is about atheism). Plenty of non-religious practicing people still believe in God. Nice try though.
— chiknsld

A theist is simply a believer in god/s. It has nothing to do with practicing a religion. There was no 'nice try'.

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is something going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably never believe in God.
— chiknsld

If it is not immediately evident to you that there is nothing going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably always use god/s as an emotional crutch. You see, you are not presenting an argument, you are just using words to construct a rudimentary appeal to mystery and emotion. I can do it in reverse and it's no better.

You've got to be kidding me. Haughtily asking for proof of God in the guise of sincere and genuine civic duty? Vladimir Putin? Gays in Saudi Arabia? You're making a mockery of atheism.

Religion does not have a monopoly on psychopathy,
— chiknsld

I did not say religion has a monopoly on psychopathy. Although in some theocracies it does. I see you prefer deflection to argument.

Wouldn't it be so easy for you if everything was all natural? I mean, then you wouldn't even have to ask a theist why they believe in God right? Or for proof? But wait (here comes the justification)...
— chiknsld

Do you have evidence of anything that is not natural? I thought not...

Justification? One of many reasons for anti-theism perhaps.

Asking people why they believe in god/s? I know many of those reasons, having a priest as a close friend, having worked in palliative care services and working with people to prevent suicide has taught me enough about believer's reasons.

But still you avoid discussing yours and resort to deflections Ok I get it, it's hard if you have no good reasons.

And you know what? I don't care that people are theists (as long as they don't want to establish a theocracy) I'm just on a forum and when theists use words that sound like they know stuff when it's way more likely they don't, I sometimes enter the discussion. Arguing about god/s is no more useful than arguing about what the best Adam Sandler movies is.

Take care, it was fun. Maybe we can engage about some other stuff later. — Tom Storm

Well I went out to the bar tonight, "so to speak", long awaiting anything that resembled moderate discourse on your behalf (rather than the child's play you seem so eager to engage in).

I will refrain from responding to the flagrant disingenuousness of your comments until tomorrow. Don't worry, I'll make sure to address all feeble trivialities with sober mind as I did earlier, if at the very least for "argument's sake".

Yea, you take care as well, lol.

And if you agree (which you can't, seeing you have no education in science) that scientific teachings are not a matter of belief but a matter of knowledge based on evidence; — god must be atheist

I can agree precisely because I have such education. And let me tell you, there is no difference between the scriptures once taught and those taught at our schools and universities, where the minds of our children are brainwashed with objective sounding BS, turning the young into mindless computer-like colorless adults, brabling and repeating the objective sounding BS they were so eagerly to learn about.

A simple disproof of god follows:

1. If God exists then there should be no evil.
2. There is evil.
Ergo,
3. God doesn't exist [1, 2 MT]

(My thanks go out to @180 Proof) — Agent Smith

Too simple, I think, for most. Consider this synoptic excerpt:

i. Omnibenevolent AND omnipotent G
ii. G created the world and all of its creatures.
iii. All creatures suffer.
iv. Suffering is inconsistent with having been created by an omnibenevolent AND omnipotent G.
v. Suffering, ergo an omnibenevolent AND omnipotent G is not real (does not exist).
vi. Consequently, the possibilities are (a) omnibenevolent but not-omnipotent G or (b) omnipotent but not-omnibenevolent G or (c) neither omnibenevolent nor omnipotent G or (d) no G whatsoever.
vii. Corollary – vi. (a, b & c) G is not worthy of worship as "G" (re: "The Riddle of Epicurus"). — Summa Atheologicae of 180 Proof

:smirk:

Epicurus, how could I have forgotten you? Curses! :smile:

God doesn't exist. Even if he exists, he can't help us or he is bad/indifferent or he's in the dark about our agony. It's a bright day, eh? Picnic?

:death: :flower:

There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us. — Franz Kafka