Lars

There’s “thank fuck” on one end of the extremes and “thank goodness” on the other.  “Bloody hell” now, I’d hate to lose that.

Reg, those blank pamphlets have lit a fire in my heart. I’m planning to hand them out in town – I’ve googled ‘blank pamphlets for sale’ but I’m not finding any….

The difference is that atheists don’t go a door knocking with their message, don’t take pleasure in announcing threats of hell, and so on.  An atheist doesn’t believe there’s a god.  Not many atheists are 100% certain, partly likely because of the absence of a common definition of Godhood.

Belle Rose wrote:

There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.

~Dan Dennett~

Arrogance. Total arrogance. Especially considering he simultaneously says we will probably never know the origins of the universe….

So how do you politely tell someone their world view is a delusion?

@matt thank you for including the unicorns

@bellerose the point is that belief in a deity has nothing to do with the objective existence of that deity.  For example, belief in ghosts does not mean ghosts exist, other than to the believer.

Belle Rose wrote:
.those things have a PURPOSE.

Some of those things HAD a purpose. Now some of them are a nuisance, a waste of body resources, open to possible breakage or infection and in some cases (appendix) quite deadly. That’s not to mention redundant pain ailments which utterly cripple people for no reason. If we evolved intelligently,…[Read more]

Belle Rose wrote:
What the fuck are you looking for? Please. Be specific.

One single falsifiable claim. One single shred of reliable and re-testable evidence. Just one of either.

Belle Rose wrote:

RE: We aren’t asking for a claim about God that finishes in two sentences, you are misrepresenting what we are asking for.

(banging my head against the wall) that is what I have been trying to clarify for MONTHS and YOU called me a liar claiming it was all spelled out for me. I told you you were wrong. I still don’t und…

[Read more]

There is not a way to sum up all of God into one small succinct explanation.

Of course not…say anything testable about God and it won’t survive scrutiny. We aren’t asking for a claim about God that finishes in two sentences, you are misrepresenting what we are asking for. Your claim is documented in a book with thousands of little claims, and…[Read more]

Belle Rose wrote:
To me it makes a difference because it is often asked to “define God.” and “provide evidence.” The implication is it should be something presented in peer reviewed research or it’s not valid. I disagree. Even with peer reviewed research, just because someone manages to get published doesn’t mean there paper then holds a “ne…

[Read more]

Belle Rose wrote:
@davis RE: Show me mobilization of troops and defense strategy briefings and specific threats from a political leader US Bombers are in action off the course of NK right now. Seismic activity was detected this morning at a NK nuclear site….

Sigh. That is not mobilization. The US has been flying planes close to North Korea for d…[Read more]

And yes, honestly, I could actually define myself.

Indeed. I’m an animated human being with a specific genetic structure. There. I’ve defined myself in a way that can be tested and confirmed leaving very little doubt if the testing was carried out well.

What about humans? How to define them? Take a longer a explanation but all of it is…[Read more]

@bellerose I know you were joking, you just happened to enable me to make that point 🙂

Reg, if any of those Fronkeys reject the fish that those dolphins sent over, you could always give  them to the Catholics on Fridays.  I suspect ‘Thoughts and Prayers’ would also be willing to help, an unusual characteristic for such a cat.

Incidentally, I c…[Read more]

@bellerose I have to go out, I’m interested in continuing, but won’t be able to reply til later on 🙂

No @bellerose I am not asking you to define.  And yes, honestly, I could actually define myself. I probably would have struggled to do so when I was a lot younger, but I am certain, given sufficient ink and paper, I could define myself pretty well.

If you refer back to my earlier post, I accepted a force majeure unknown to humans, for the sake…[Read more]

@bellerose Actually I think I could describe myself sufficiently that if I were meeting someone I’d never met or seen before, they’d be able to recognize me.   As far as further definition goes, there are many add-ons I could provide, but all of them would be attached to my physical description to start with.  There’s a starting point.

Your p…[Read more]

I read this statement.  The author is saying that we should not be restricting our imaginations by focusing on what does or doesn’t physically exist at present.  He/she thinks it’s possible to envisage the entire human race perishing from some force nobody comprehends.

I disagree. If humanity were to be extinguished, I’m afraid it would have to b…[Read more]

Lol @bellerose that’s the irony of it really.  You can imagine being able to say,”told you so” whereas conversely, an atheist cannot.  Wouldn’t it be funny if I could imagine saying that, when I’m firmly of the opinion that we simply return ‘to dust’ and that no religious person will ever ‘find out’ that they were wrong.