The Religion of Atheism

[Alisa]

And Number 2 is also the most likely.

Thus Alisa can't see that mental telepathy or similar is in the same department as God/god/gods. The atheist works on the basis that everything can be explained by science.

Sure I can, both concepts are fictional.
You have yet to provide evidence for either.
You expect me to believe your stories (god, telepathy, prediction of tv schedule) with no evidence, but you refuse to believe my purple planet story. Why?

You have ignored me before, and I expect you will ignore me again, but I have never claimed that science can explain everything. Thats just something you like to say.

 

[Mike375]

In that example, isn't Alpha Thinking just another term for having self-confidence and drive?

The lack of condfidence and drive is a product of what is in the sub conscious and Alpha Thinking is about changing it.

 

[Mike375]

Sure I can, both concepts are fictional.
You have yet to provide evidence for either.
You expect me to believe your stories (god, telepathy, prediction of tv schedule) with no evidence, but you refuse to believe my purple planet story. Why?

You have ignored me before, and I expect you will ignore me again, but I have never claimed that science can explain everything. Thats just something you like to say.

Alisa,

I have replied to you about everytime, except sometimes I will miss a post.

You expect me to believe your stories (god, telepathy, prediction of tv schedule) with no evidence

I don't expect you to believe anything. I posted "evidence" as per the movies. You have rejected it and that is fine by me.

As to your purple planet scenario I can't see how that is even close to relating to the movie evidence. But if you feel it does then that is fine too.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

On avererage it is around 3 movies a week that come to mind and the hit rate is just short of 100%,

Wait... nearly 100%?

You hardly ever think of a movie, without soon after finding it played on the TV? That sounds really unlikely.

 

[Mike375]

Wait... nearly 100%?

You hardly ever think of a movie, without soon after finding it played on the TV? That sounds really unlikely.

It is in the context of the movie comes to mind and I think I would like to see it again. It is more than a passing thought.

But it does not happen with movies that come up in conversation etc.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike375

And Number 2 is also the most likely.

Ah, but you missed the rest of the point. After the fact, you cannot say anything until you determine whether I cheated to make #2 more likely by manipulating the dice. You have made a choice based on incomplete evidence because you didn't investigate. You just assumed. And that is a humongous piece of the pie. You picked according to your personal bias without asking anyone if they checked the dice or watched me throw. You just said, Oh that can't happen so it must be #2.

You accuse me of being locked in a box with my thinking, but in fact you are the one who made the assumption for the circumstances. But OK, let's take the dice story a little deeper, shall we? Now you investigate and find that no, the dice weren't loaded and no, I didn't try to manipulate the dice. People said they saw them roll properly so that there was no axial bias. Where do you go from there?

Well, the next step is to say that it was so unlikely that it must not have happened and therefore must have been a hallucination or a conspiracy to say that Doc rolled 50 boxcars in a row. Which is EXACTLY what we say when told of those miracles and such. Yet on the one side you believe; on the other, you disbelieve. I'm still alive and the witnesses can be directly questioned. But that old book is 2000 years old and ALL the witnesses are dust moldering in the grave, no longer subject to questioning. But you will believe accounts that cannot be corroborated rather than believe something that can be tested directly.

THIS, to me, is trapped-in-the-box thinking. And it ain't me who is trapped.

 

[Mike375]

The_Doc_Man

I addressed the boxed in form like attitude to Alisa and was referring specifically to the debating method. Alisa is unable to consider a question that is not on the form.

But you have missed my point why I would have chosen Number 2. Firstly it does not matter if you did cheat. I am after the correct answer.

Put it this way, if you were confronted it with and were betting $10,000 you would pick the right answer then I think you would go with Number 2.

I don't need to investigate to know the odds against rolling the dice the same way 50 times is a zillion to one. But cheating with weighted dice or however it would be done is on the cards

I win the bet if I pick the right answer. Winning the bet is not based on me explaining how it was done.

If someone started winning first prize in lotto every week then the authorities would investigate because they would eliminate chance. They would accept two wins in a row but three in row would certainly bring on the warning light. They would look for the numbers being stacked etc because chance would be eliminated.

 

[JamesLast99]

Do what you like, Paul. You said a while back that I was getting entertaining? You're getting tedious.

You're incapable of answering questions and you can't grasp concepts like logic. EVERY decision that is based on logic, is based on currently held information. Every one. You drop a ball, logically it will fall, based on the fact that you know about gravity. I know ythat god doesn't exist, so my logical deductions are based on that.

If you believe that god not existing is a falsehood - as you just said - you must have some evidence that says his existence is true?

Congratulations on not swearing yet, though. You must be learning something.

Ahem - ahem - you do not know God does not exist - that statement alone shows perfectly where you are wrong. God may not exist. Let me explain - I don't know the bonus ball on the weekend will be even - it may be , but I don't know and neither do you. If we said it was, Its not logical to then say if I picked 33 - I would be wrong - cos we know its even. Thats absolulte and utter rubbish - but its what you are trying to do here. You can't base your arguments - on something you don't know. Well you can - but its garbage. You kind of understand the concept beacuse you have below as rubbish (somehow you attribute it to someone who doesn't belive in God though)You are completely unable to see - the fault you find in the oppsoing argument (which I have never seen used here) is the exact same fault in your own.I am not the one who belives someone who doesn't belive in God - has the logic - that the bible is true - Jesus is the son of god therefore God exists.


Thats your genius! And why I'll leave you to it. As well as the saying balck is white. And then denying all ownwrship of such statements. You are every bit as bad as a nutty bible basher.

I don't know what questions you want me to answer - I don't know if God exists. Why I don't know I have told you repeatedly. If you think I should knwo tell me why? Otherwise - what are you trying to get at?

Well done yourself for not swearing!

 

[JamesLast99]

Mike375



Ah, but you missed the rest of the point. After the fact, you cannot say anything until you determine whether I cheated to make #2 more likely by manipulating the dice. You have made a choice based on incomplete evidence because you didn't investigate. You just assumed. And that is a humongous piece of the pie. You picked according to your personal bias without asking anyone if they checked the dice or watched me throw. You just said, Oh that can't happen so it must be #2.

You accuse me of being locked in a box with my thinking, but in fact you are the one who made the assumption for the circumstances. But OK, let's take the dice story a little deeper, shall we? Now you investigate and find that no, the dice weren't loaded and no, I didn't try to manipulate the dice. People said they saw them roll properly so that there was no axial bias. Where do you go from there?

Well, the next step is to say that it was so unlikely that it must not have happened and therefore must have been a hallucination or a conspiracy to say that Doc rolled 50 boxcars in a row. Which is EXACTLY what we say when told of those miracles and such. Yet on the one side you believe; on the other, you disbelieve. I'm still alive and the witnesses can be directly questioned. But that old book is 2000 years old and ALL the witnesses are dust moldering in the grave, no longer subject to questioning. But you will believe accounts that cannot be corroborated rather than believe something that can be tested directly.

THIS, to me, is trapped-in-the-box thinking. And it ain't me who is trapped.

Mike said 2 was more likely - hes right isn't he? He didn't say 1 was impossible. You have a video clip of this? At least after 5 in a row - you must have thought - about capturing it on video or something?How do you get the equivalency of the possiblity of God to 6^100 or whatever the probability of this event is. Maybe Gods as likely as rolling 5, 6s on the run. Show us your working out?Otherwise you are incorrectly linking two proabilities - and trying to pretend they are equal?

 

[Alc]

you do not know God does not exist - that statement alone shows perfectly where you are wrong.

As both myself and at least one other poster have tried to explain to you. One can say that certain things do not exist and be 100% certain in that knowledge if they don't exist. Unicorns do not exist. Trolls do not exist. God does not exist. These are interprations based on all available knowledge - as is everything that everyone (including you) 'knows'.
If I were to say that God may not exist, I'd be an agnostic, not an atheist. an ethist is sure that he does not exist.

Let me explain - I don't know the bonus ball on the weekend will be even - it may be , but I don't know and neither do you. If we said it was, Its not logical to then say if I picked 33 - I would be wrong - cos we know its even. Thats absolulte and utter rubbish - but its what you are trying to do here. You can't base your arguments - on something you don't know.

I see what you're saying here, but it isn't the same thing.
Do you know that gravity works? Not in some cosmic all all areas of the universe sense of the word, but here, on earth? Yes, you do.
Do you know that faeries don't exist? Yes, you do.
Based on all evidence you've seen, heard or read, you 'know' these facts.
Someone else may experience exctly the same information and decide that they 'know' differently.

You kind of understand the concept beacuse you have below as rubbish (somehow you attribute it to someone who doesn't belive in God though)

This sentence doesn't mean anything?

As well as the saying balck is white. And then denying all ownwrship of such statements.

Fast becoming your trademark, this bit.
Making claims that yourself of other people have written someting, but being unable/unwilling to back it up with specific references.

Good job: You still haven't sworn, but your spelling is becoming even more erratic. Perhaps you could get help with that?

 

[JamesLast99]

As both myself and at least one other poster have tried to explain to you. One can say that certain things do not exist and be 100% certain in that knowledge if they don't exist. Unicorns do not exist. Trolls do not exist. God does not exist. These are interprations based on all available knowledge - as is everything that everyone (including you) 'knows'.
If I were to say that God may not exist, I'd be an agnostic, not an atheist. an ethist is sure that he does not exist.

I see what you're saying here, but it isn't the same thing.
Do you know that gravity works? Not in some cosmic all all areas of the universe sense of the word, but here, on earth? Yes, you do.
Do you know that faeries don't exist? Yes, you do.
Based on all evidence you've seen, heard or read, you 'know' these facts.
Someone else may experience exctly the same information and decide that they 'know' differently.

This sentence doesn't mean anything?

Fast becoming your trademark, this bit.
Making claims that yourself of other people have written someting, but being unable/unwilling to back it up with specific references.

Good job: You still haven't sworn, but your spelling is becoming even more erratic. Perhaps you could get help with that?

You have resorted to personal insult a few times now? A trait you claim not to admire! LMAO - oh well.In a thread about the excistence of God - its not good enough to base all arguments on the FACT that God does not exist. If you can't see that. God help you. Oh no he can't.

My spelling is terrible - its a mistake - I admit it, and I admit I don't know if God exists and sometimes my logic is flawed. Those admissions are not too difficult. If you wanta discussion on a decent level you have one.Its quite sad you can't admit to the 10 posts or so yesterday where you said balck was white then denied it - and then repeated the exercise on another subject. Fooling yourself in the end, and only yourself.Nevermind - do we agree to disagee?

 

[Alc]

You have resorted to personal insult a few times now?

Where was the insult? The comment on the spelling was merely an attempt to work out what some of your posts meant. That last sentence I mentioned? Even allowing for spelling, it made no sense.

Its quite sad you can't admit to the 10 posts or so yesterday where you said balck was white then denied it - and then repeated the exercise on another subject. Fooling yourself in the end, and only yourself.
Nevermind - do we agree to disagee?

Better than that, I'll admit I was wrong if you can just provide evidence for the claim that I said one thing then immediately contradicted it. Either single occasion will do, as I know you're not keen on backing up what you claim people have written.

Oh, and the 'fooling yourself' comment is pretty rich, coming from someone who thinks they fooled people by adopting a new alias after being kicked off for bad language.

 

[JamesLast99]

Can't see the insult , don't hear more intelligent than yourself believers.
Can't admit you were wrong - you didn't still don't - if you want to pretend its cos you weren't thats fine by me. I'm not going to waste my time for you to swear black is white again - you have history.


Whats your problem with theists again - don't look at the evidence, lack logic, and are deluding themsleves. Hilarious.</p>On your way son!
Good luck to you!
AS for the fooling anyone on bad language - it was admittedly straight up soon as one and the same person. You clearly missed that too.
You miss a lot!
Let me get it right - God does not exist cos God does not exist? Brilliant absolutely brilliant - I stand corrected.

 

[Alc]

Can't see the insult , don't here more intelligent than yourself believers.

AS for the fooling anyone on bad language - it was admittedly straight up soon as one and the same person.

Is English not your first language? If so, I apologise. If not, you really should get help.

Can't admit you were wrong - you didn't still don't - if you want to pretend its cos you weren't thats fine by me. I'm not going to waste my time for you to sware balck is white again - you have history.

I've already said that I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can provide any evidence of it. Repeating 'black is white' over and over isn't evidence (however badly you spell it). Giving a reference to the posts where it occurred might be, but clearly that's a bit beyond you.

I don't know why you keep saying that all Germans are tall.
(You've never actually said that, by the way, but I'm playing by your rules, now).

 

[JamesLast99]

God does not exist cos God does not exist - Alc - repeatedly.I though you studied philosophy - were at ?

 

[DildoBaggins1834]

Atheist Kindergarten!

 

[JamesLast99]

Is English not your first language? If so, I apologise. If not, you really should get help.
Can't admit you were wrong - you didn't still don't - if you want to pretend its cos you weren't thats fine by me. I'm not going to waste my time for you to sware balck is white again - you have history.

I've already said that I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can provide any evidence of it. Repeating 'black is white' over and over isn't evidence (however badly you spell it). Giving a reference to the posts where it occurred might be, but clearly that's a bit beyond you.

I don't know why you keep saying that all Germans are tall.
(You've never actually said that, by the way, but I'm playing by your rules, now).

Its not my fault you are so quick in ignorant denial - that you beat me to the typo fixes - Oh - surprise surprise you are wrong again - looking at the timing you didn't. Well not when you finished your denial anyhow.Typos - hey - Therefore God exists! Or does he?

 

[Alc]

God does not exist cos God does not exist - Alc - repeatedly.I though you studied philosophy - were at ?

{Insert your own mythical creature} does not exist because there is no evidence at all of it's existence. This applies to ghosts, goblins, gods or anything else. That statement isn't evidence, it's a conclusion, based on the total lack of evidence, and I stand by it.

Assuming you mean 'where', I've never said I studied philosophy. Or is this going to be another one where I don't have to have said it, as long as you go on to repeat the idea that I have a few more times?

 

[Alc]

Can't admit you were wrong - you didn't still don't - if you want to pretend its cos you weren't thats fine by me. I'm not going to waste my time for you to sware balck is white again - you have history.

Then don't waste your time. You could prove your point in seconds if you could just provide two posts. One where I've said something, and a second where I've completely contradicted it.

Its not my fault you are so quick in ignorant denial - that you beat me to the typo fixes - Oh - surprise surprise you are wrong again - looking at the timing you didn't. Well not when you finished your denial anyhow.Typos - hey - Therefore God exists! Or does he?

Once again, no idea what you're banging on about here.

 

[JamesLast99]

Start from my first post yesterday to you yesterday.I fully agree you are clueless , whether of a genuine variety - or playing up - I can't tell.To be honest mate - it really doesn't matter.
Have you told the local priest God does not exist? Perhaps you should?