The default position is agnosticism, which is not having an opinion about whether or not there is anything godly and/or spiritual in existence.
Bullshit. Agnosticism requires more knowledge, experience and learning not less, than atheism. To state that the nature of god is unknowable requires one to understand the concept of god, to understand the relationship of that concept to the universe, and to draw a conclusion based on that. That doesn't make agnosticism any more valid than atheism, but it does mean that agnosticism can not be the default position since it *requires* more knowledge to even state the position.
To be an atheist requires *only* a complete lack of belief in magical invisible fairies. Nobody is born believing in magical invisible fairies, therefore *everyone* is born an atheist.
existence. Once you claim to be an atheist, you're stating that you believe there is nothing beyond the material and physical.
Again, bullshit.
You're stating merely that never have you been presented with any sane evidence for any such thing. Nobody has ever been presented with any such thing, so a lot of people choose (or are brainwashed by their parents or society in almost every single case) to just start believing it without a single scrap of evidence.
Perspectives are a funny thing, like all those people saying the media is controlled by Republicans, it always seemed to me that the media is controlled by liberals.
That isn't an issue of "perspective". It's a total lack of any knowledge or even common sense on your part.
There are a few huge corproations who own almost all of our media. The only two groups the republicans cater to are religious extremists and huge corporations.
And they all said the Republicans were for the big companies and Demos were for the little guy, but it seemed to me the policies of the demos kept the so-called little guy down.
The Republicans are for the big companies and *against* the average citizen. There is no possible way to dispute that. That has nothing at all to do with the fact that the Democrats are scum as well.
Perhaps a disgruntled GOP member didn't so much misaddress the e-mails?
I've read a bit of his work, so know his style a bit. Based on that my automatic "translation" of what he said is exactly that. I was surprised to see people not getting that right away. Every time he gets information he "shouldn't" have that's how he says it. It's called protecting your sources.
You are denying that people can possibly not have considered a question and thus have not reached a conclusion.
I am doing nothing of the sort. The default position is non belief. Absolutely, positively and without possibility of contradiction. Go ahead, try and find a contradiction.
Instead you are posting repeatedly that any question (or maybe you are just hung up on this particular question) that someone has not considered is, by default, the negative.
I'm not talking about any questions. I'm talking about patently ridiculous unjustified assertions.
I have never tasted caviar, so I cannot answer the question "Do I like the taste of caviar?" and I will absolutely not agree that I do not like the taste.
But I know that belief is entirely different than the belief in, say, the laws of physics.
And asking about the impressions left on your mind by the taste of a physical object which does actually exist is entirely different than unjustifiable and indefensible propositions.
So far nobody has developed an experiment to test that God exists.
Nobody has ever proposed a single rational reason to even consider the possibility.
Therefore I know that my disbelief is a matter of faith and not a matter of science.
Therefore I know that my total lack of belief is neither faith nor science. It's basic common sense and a lack of gullibility.
Sigh, when you ask any young child "how was the world created?"
He can only answer: I don't know, not 'there is no god' because he *doesn't know* what a god is. So we are all born agnostic.
No, you're asking the wrong question.
Ask the child, "Do you believe that there is an invisible magical fairy in the sky who loves you so much that he will burn you forever if you don't believe in his existence without any evidence, proof, or sane justification".
If he says, "no", then you've eliminated the Christian god. Continue for any other delusional fantasies you might have.
Then when we explain to children what a god is, he can become atheist, believer, or stay agnostic. Nope. You have to explain that first.
So no, children are not born atheist, it doesn't make sense.
Do they believe in god? No. It makes perfect sense.
My question: can there be evidence that God exists?
Quite obviously yes. If god existed and was what people say he is then he could quite easily eliminate all religious murder, all conflict between religions and all atheism by merely demonstrating his existence.
Faith is a prerequisite. Not much different than the answer of science.
So you're just begging the question. All you have to back up your position is a logical fallacy. No surprises there.
Your answer is what?
That if you're capable of constructing a rational argument you have failed utterly to demonstrate that fact.
There's absolutely no logical reason to believe atheism over theism.
Which is a flat out bald-faced lie..
There is no reason whatsoever to believe in god. Therefore Atheism is the default position. There is no reason to be anything except an atheist until one of you nutjobs after thousands of years of lies and manipulation comes up with one single sane rational reason to think for a split second that there might be any possibility to your insane ravings. Over the entire course of human history nobody has come up with a single one.
So, since you need to lie about something as simple as that as a defense of your position, your position is worthless.
I'm sorry you have such a hard time dealing with reality.
Its a for profit organization unlike every other major religion.
You mean *exactly* like every other major religion. Go look at the assets of the Catholic Church and consider why priests are not allowed to get married.
Hmm, what you describe is broken. Any chance you can figure out how to reproduce this so I can see if I can figure out what's going on? Not that I'd be able to do anything about it of course, I'm just curious.
It was as simple as I described it. Look at the name of something via explorer and via command line. Change the name via explorer and look at it again in both.
Now, this was some time ago...Might have been W2K, but I think it was most likely NT4. I've never tried it in a newer version.
(Well, at least why aren't they similar to the difference between case sensitivity and insensitivity; I can see why they could be considered different from the problem you are describing.)
Well, the issue I had was my only concern or point of reference, so I can see where your argument works in certain situations.
The question of the existence of God is an open scientific hypothesis. Hence the reference to S. Hawking's "A Brief History of Time".
No it isn't you moron. The question as to the origin of the universe is an open question. The big bang is a theory that gets close. "God" is a delusion, not a hypothesis.
I've given you the evidence and a way to reproduce them. Why is this different to the scientific method?
Because you did nothing of the sort you lying sack of shit. There is *no* evidence as you know damn well, or would if you weren't brain damaged. There is no way to reproduce your delusions in a properly functioning brain.
I've never had delusions in my entire life,
You believe in a magical invisible fairy. That's a delusion, Sparky. Deal with it.
I don't do drugs, drink etc.
Perhaps you should give it a try. It might help open your mind.
If I'm desperate to convince myself, what are you?
Unconvinced by *your* desperation.
I refer to the fact (you cannot deny this, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself to the contrary) that the question of the existence of God is an open scientific hypothesis.
No, it isn't. "A magical invisible fairy did it" is not scientific or a hypothesis. Your insistence that it is makes you a delusional *liar*.
For me it's actually more than just a hypothesis.
Yes, it's a delusion you're so desperate to believe that you'll tell idiotic lies to try and pretend it's even rational.
I'm giving references to support my statement that (again) the existence of God is an open scientific hypothesis. You suggest that the only authority in the world is you. Something's wrong here.
No, you're making a logical fallacy called "Appeal to authority".
Sure, many scientists believe in god. Most will tell you it's not in the least scientific. I'm not saying I'm the only authority. I'm saying that just because a scientist *believes* something doesn't make it science. Something is very wrong and it's entirely to do with your pathetic lack of ability to avoid fallacies in your thinking.
Which is?
That it's all magical invisible fairies.
I just know that God exists, just like I know that I exist (where's the evidence?!).
And you claim to be studying science?!? Whatever moron.
Durrrrrrr.. I know the flying spaghetti monster exists because I know. Again, you're begging the question. You keep repeating the same fallacies: Appeal to authority and Begging the question. That's basic logic 1, you idiotic liar.
Perhaps you missed the question, so here it is again: What are the high(!) standards that allow a hypothesis to be considered by you?
Perhaps you missed the answer, idiot. *Any evidence whatsoever would be a good place to start*. That isn't a high standard. It's bare minimum scraping the bottom of the barrel and after thousands of years not one of you delusional fools have met it.
How are you so certain about that?
Try opening a history book nitwit.
It certainly wasn't spread that way near where I live!
Actually it was. Just not recently. Go tell your delusional lies to the closest remains of the natives.
History shows me otherwise, Christians were the ones getting slaughtered in Roman stadiums in the beginning just for stating their belief
Hardly. There were a couple minor purges sparked in large part due to subversive activities. Granted, the Emperor was pretty fucked up, so I'm not saying that they were wrong to work against his authority, but let's not pretend it was just for their religion. The Romans were more tolerant of other religions than damn near any other society in history.
Of course, after a brief period with some purges, Christians took over the empire and the current dogma was arrived at as a method of achieving political control. Make up some new c
First, whose to say that the problem you name isn't caused by Unix lying about whether "foo.html" and "Foo.html" are different files?
Because there was no unix system involved in that. It was Windows explorer versus command line. The problems showed up when the files were copied to a unix system because the documents referenced in the links didn't match the actual file names.
Here's where the lie happened. I looked at files in explorer. I changed the name of a file from, say, FOO.html to foo.html. Explorer told me it changed the name. It didn't. Opening a command window and typing dir showed the *actual* name of the file. move FOO.html foo.html *did* change the name.
That is badly broken behavior.
Where should the lies end? Why should they end with a case sensitive file system?
You cannot base a scientific theory entirely on assertions.
Nothing about god, religion or faith is scientific, so you're really not making any sense.
My evidence is personal, not the type that you can call scientific, unless you're willing to reproduce them according to what the New Testament says.
By which you mean that you have no evidence whatsoever. Just because you had a delusion, a hallucination, or are so desperate to believe something so silly, that you'll convince yourself it's god is not evidence of any sort.
The reference to S. Hawking was to prove that science has nothing to do with your claims about the existence of God. Who said Hawking is an authority?
You did: "What makes you think you know more than him about this issue? "
There are lots of scientists that think otherwise;
Another appeal to authority. So. Fucking. What?
You still fail to state the reason that such a belief is "ludicrous", as no sane person believes in fairies, fairies don't have the ability to affect your life and not much in the fairy belief can be observed and reproduced.
I never said that religious people were sane. You just made clear why it's ludicrous.
The universe can be observed.
But god can't. You presumably think it's because he's a prankster although you lack the integrity to admit that's equivalent to whatever nonsense you will say you actually think.
Please don't start the nonsense about flying monsters and teacups.
You're the only one promoting nonsense. You might want to deal with that first.
What are the high(!) standards that allow a hypothesis to be considered by you?
where do you get off claiming that asking for *any evidence at all of any sort whatsoever* is high standards?
Are they higher than the standards of all the scientists in the world?!
Don't you ever get tired of making yourself a fool by repeating the same logical fallacies over and over again?
So what? You're talking about the entire human history, I suppose
I am and you lose again. Deal with the fact that the entire history of your religion was brutal and murderous. That's how it was spread and those who didn't accept it were burned alive among many other gruesome tortures for the "crime" of not buying into your bullshit.
If I give you a cross to hold, should you be considered a Christian?
I certainly hope not. I have morals, integrity and am a decent human being.
How can their actions be compatible with the teaching of Jesus?
What do the teachings of Jesus have to do with being a Christian? If you're going to pretend that's in any way related then you're going to have a really hard time naming 10 Christians in the history of the world. I mean, that's assuming there ever was such a person for which there is likewise no evidence whatsoever.
Nevertheless, the ideology has its roots in atheism.
Regardless, blind faith even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is a religion.
What have you replaced God with? Again, we're back to the root of your fundamental failure. Really it's your parent's fault for being so abusive to you before you were old enough to think rationally. I do not have a god shaped hole in my brain. I am not damaged to that degree. I did not replace god with anything because there never was a god. I never for one second in my life bought into such a transparent scam.
There never was a god, I never was so worthless and weak as to need one so I've never needed to replace it. I really do pity you because you were badly abused to the point that your brain is damaged so badly that you most likely are not even capable of understanding that.
Where is the evidence?
You keep claiming that your magical invisible fairy has some intrinsic value as an idea. You keep failing to provide any evidence.
How do you know that the reason God doesn't exist is that the notion has been invented by humans?
I don't. Nor does that even make any sense. The "reason" god doesn't exist is nonsensical. That he doesn't exist is just the only reasonable assertion given the complete and total lack of any evidence. Again, you're presuming that there is some merit to the very idea without ever offering any justification for it.
What makes you think you know more than him about this issue?
The fact that I know that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Doubly so when the authority isn't an authority on the topic under discussion. OK, technically that's how I know that I know more than *you*.
"I don't have faith god doesn't exist" Where's your evidence then?
Evidence of what? Until *you* can provide any evidence for your insane assertion that there's an invisible fairy in the sky I don't need any evidence to reject something so ludicrous out of hand.
There is no magical automatic merit given to magical fairies, you'll have to present some before your idiotic idea will even be considered by me.
You're probably not aware that the 3rd Reich ideology was based on Neitzsche's superhuman, which is the basis for atheism for some people even today.Many also claim that Nietzsche's work is the ideological basis of communism.
Right...Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
We're talking about regimes that caused the vast majority of deaths throughout history. What's your argument again?
You're talking about two regimes over part of one century. Further, the Nazis were explicitly and aggressively Christian. Communism replaced "God" with "The State". It's no less of a religion and an "idiotic belief system".
So, sorry that you thought that you had a point. Perhaps you should actually think rather than repeating bullshit that nutjob liars tell you to keep you buying their bullshit in the face of all evidence? 5 minutes of research would have let you know the Nazis were extremist Christians yet you couldn't even be bothered with that before lying. You might want to address that serious deep seated issue you have with integrity.
Even more surely, I don't. I wasn't born doubting god. I was born, as were you, with zero belief in any such thing.
You're again confusing agnosticism and atheism.
No, that would be you. Agnosticism is the belief that the nature or existence of God is unknowable, or perhaps doubt as to the existence of god.
Atheism == without belief in god or gods.
Until most people are fucked over by abusive parents, they have *no* belief in any such ridiculous idea. Everybody without exception is born an atheist.
The writings of Flavius Josephus mention Jesus. There are several versions of these scripts, and some have been edited to contain things such as "He was the Messiah". Latest research was able to identify what was modified, and the conclusion was that Jesus and his followers are mentioned, but not that he was described as the Messiah by Flavius Josephus.
Not so.
Depending on how charitable the expert is, the Josephus document's mention of Jesus was either added later maliciously, or as an error in transcription. It fits neither the style, nor the flow of the document.
but from what I learned so far, the account of Flavius Josephus seems pretty authentic.
Slashdot Mirror
The default position is agnosticism, which is not having an opinion about whether or not there is anything godly and/or spiritual in existence.
Bullshit.
Agnosticism requires more knowledge, experience and learning not less, than atheism. To state that the nature of god is unknowable requires one to understand the concept of god, to understand the relationship of that concept to the universe, and to draw a conclusion based on that. That doesn't make agnosticism any more valid than atheism, but it does mean that agnosticism can not be the default position since it *requires* more knowledge to even state the position.
To be an atheist requires *only* a complete lack of belief in magical invisible fairies.
Nobody is born believing in magical invisible fairies, therefore *everyone* is born an atheist.
existence. Once you claim to be an atheist, you're stating that you believe there is nothing beyond the material and physical.
Again, bullshit.
You're stating merely that never have you been presented with any sane evidence for any such thing. Nobody has ever been presented with any such thing, so a lot of people choose (or are brainwashed by their parents or society in almost every single case) to just start believing it without a single scrap of evidence.
Perspectives are a funny thing, like all those people saying the media is controlled by Republicans, it always seemed to me that the media is controlled by liberals.
That isn't an issue of "perspective". It's a total lack of any knowledge or even common sense on your part.
There are a few huge corproations who own almost all of our media.
The only two groups the republicans cater to are religious extremists and huge corporations.
And they all said the Republicans were for the big companies and Demos were for the little guy, but it seemed to me the policies of the demos kept the so-called little guy down.
The Republicans are for the big companies and *against* the average citizen. There is no possible way to dispute that.
That has nothing at all to do with the fact that the Democrats are scum as well.
Perhaps a disgruntled GOP member didn't so much misaddress the e-mails?
I've read a bit of his work, so know his style a bit. Based on that my automatic "translation" of what he said is exactly that.
I was surprised to see people not getting that right away.
Every time he gets information he "shouldn't" have that's how he says it.
It's called protecting your sources.
You are denying that people can possibly not have considered a question and thus have not reached a conclusion.
I am doing nothing of the sort.
The default position is non belief. Absolutely, positively and without possibility of contradiction.
Go ahead, try and find a contradiction.
Instead you are posting repeatedly that any question (or maybe you are just hung up on this particular question) that someone has not considered is, by default, the negative.
I'm not talking about any questions. I'm talking about patently ridiculous unjustified assertions.
I have never tasted caviar, so I cannot answer the question "Do I like the taste of caviar?" and I will absolutely not agree that I do not like the taste.
But I know that belief is entirely different than the belief in, say, the laws of physics.
And asking about the impressions left on your mind by the taste of a physical object which does actually exist is entirely different than unjustifiable and indefensible propositions.
So far nobody has developed an experiment to test that God exists.
Nobody has ever proposed a single rational reason to even consider the possibility.
Therefore I know that my disbelief is a matter of faith and not a matter of science.
Therefore I know that my total lack of belief is neither faith nor science. It's basic common sense and a lack of gullibility.
Sigh, when you ask any young child "how was the world created?"
He can only answer: I don't know, not 'there is no god' because he *doesn't know* what a god is.
So we are all born agnostic.
No, you're asking the wrong question.
Ask the child, "Do you believe that there is an invisible magical fairy in the sky who loves you so much that he will burn you forever if you don't believe in his existence without any evidence, proof, or sane justification".
If he says, "no", then you've eliminated the Christian god.
Continue for any other delusional fantasies you might have.
Then when we explain to children what a god is, he can become atheist, believer, or stay agnostic.
Nope. You have to explain that first.
So no, children are not born atheist, it doesn't make sense.
Do they believe in god? No.
It makes perfect sense.
My question: can there be evidence that God exists?
Quite obviously yes.
If god existed and was what people say he is then he could quite easily eliminate all religious murder, all conflict between religions and all atheism by merely demonstrating his existence.
Faith is a prerequisite. Not much different than the answer of science.
So you're just begging the question. All you have to back up your position is a logical fallacy. No surprises there.
Your answer is what?
That if you're capable of constructing a rational argument you have failed utterly to demonstrate that fact.
It is time for religious freedom laws to be reformed. If that requires a constitutional amendment, then let's do it.
You might want to look at the demographics of this country before you suggest anything so insane again.
The amendment would eliminate the seperation of Church and state and establish a fascist theocracy.
The first amendment is the only thing that has stopped these religious extremists so far.
Atheism is the belief that there is nothing in existence but the material
What utter crap.
A: without
theism: belief in god or gods.
You believe in a magical invisible fairy.
I think that's a patently ridiculous belief and you don't have one damn thing to back it up.
It is that clear and simple.
You believe insane nonsense without a single reason.
I do not.
That's the difference between theism and atheism.
There's absolutely no logical reason to believe atheism over theism.
Which is a flat out bald-faced lie..
There is no reason whatsoever to believe in god. Therefore Atheism is the default position.
There is no reason to be anything except an atheist until one of you nutjobs after thousands of years of lies and manipulation comes up with one single sane rational reason to think for a split second that there might be any possibility to your insane ravings.
Over the entire course of human history nobody has come up with a single one.
So, since you need to lie about something as simple as that as a defense of your position, your position is worthless.
I'm sorry you have such a hard time dealing with reality.
Its a for profit organization unlike every other major religion.
You mean *exactly* like every other major religion.
Go look at the assets of the Catholic Church and consider why priests are not allowed to get married.
As for my two cents, it's not a real religion. It's a corrupt, mind controlling pyramid scheme,
Which makes it different from other religions how exactly?
Hmm, what you describe is broken. Any chance you can figure out how to reproduce this so I can see if I can figure out what's going on? Not that I'd be able to do anything about it of course, I'm just curious.
It was as simple as I described it. Look at the name of something via explorer and via command line. Change the name via explorer and look at it again in both.
Now, this was some time ago...Might have been W2K, but I think it was most likely NT4. I've never tried it in a newer version.
(Well, at least why aren't they similar to the difference between case sensitivity and insensitivity; I can see why they could be considered different from the problem you are describing.)
Well, the issue I had was my only concern or point of reference, so I can see where your argument works in certain situations.
That's quite an accomplishment in a town notorious for a population with an average IQ just slightly north of "moderately retarded."
I think you're holding your map upside down if you think that's "north'.
First the Romans hunted the Christians, when the Christian religion took hold after Augustus, the Christians hunted the non-Christians.
;-)
*Hundreds of years* after Augustus. He died in 14 AD
That was just a bit misleading
Things got a little better thanks to people like Martin Luther (not King, in this context), who pushed for mainstream access to translated Bibles,
Well, he pushed for mainstream access to the Bible..and the extermination of the Jews, of course.
it's pretty much undisputed that the original Hebrew word did not apply to, for instance, killing in the course of a just war.
,is how they originally came into possession of Israel.
;-)
Or even an unjust genocide to steal people's land which, according to the bible
Oh, wait... "the voices in my head told me to do it" makes it just
Neither Scotland, England nor Wales are countries. They don't exist.
;-)
Not true for much longer if Sean Connery gets his way
The question of the existence of God is an open scientific hypothesis. Hence the reference to S. Hawking's "A Brief History of Time".
.
No it isn't you moron.
The question as to the origin of the universe is an open question. The big bang is a theory that gets close. "God" is a delusion, not a hypothesis.
I've given you the evidence and a way to reproduce them. Why is this different to the scientific method?
Because you did nothing of the sort you lying sack of shit. There is *no* evidence as you know damn well, or would if you weren't brain damaged. There is no way to reproduce your delusions in a properly functioning brain.
I've never had delusions in my entire life,
You believe in a magical invisible fairy. That's a delusion, Sparky. Deal with it.
I don't do drugs, drink etc.
Perhaps you should give it a try. It might help open your mind.
If I'm desperate to convince myself, what are you?
Unconvinced by *your* desperation.
I refer to the fact (you cannot deny this, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself to the contrary) that the question of the existence of God is an open scientific hypothesis
No, it isn't. "A magical invisible fairy did it" is not scientific or a hypothesis.
Your insistence that it is makes you a delusional *liar*.
For me it's actually more than just a hypothesis.
Yes, it's a delusion you're so desperate to believe that you'll tell idiotic lies to try and pretend it's even rational.
I'm giving references to support my statement that (again) the existence of God is an open scientific hypothesis. You suggest that the only authority in the world is you. Something's wrong here.
No, you're making a logical fallacy called "Appeal to authority".
Sure, many scientists believe in god. Most will tell you it's not in the least scientific. I'm not saying I'm the only authority. I'm saying that just because a scientist *believes* something doesn't make it science. Something is very wrong and it's entirely to do with your pathetic lack of ability to avoid fallacies in your thinking.
Which is?
That it's all magical invisible fairies.
I just know that God exists, just like I know that I exist (where's the evidence?!).
And you claim to be studying science?!? Whatever moron.
Durrrrrrr.. I know the flying spaghetti monster exists because I know.
Again, you're begging the question.
You keep repeating the same fallacies: Appeal to authority and Begging the question.
That's basic logic 1, you idiotic liar.
Perhaps you missed the question, so here it is again: What are the high(!) standards that allow a hypothesis to be considered by you?
Perhaps you missed the answer, idiot.
*Any evidence whatsoever would be a good place to start*.
That isn't a high standard. It's bare minimum scraping the bottom of the barrel and after thousands of years not one of you delusional fools have met it.
How are you so certain about that?
Try opening a history book nitwit.
It certainly wasn't spread that way near where I live!
Actually it was. Just not recently. Go tell your delusional lies to the closest remains of the natives.
History shows me otherwise, Christians were the ones getting slaughtered in Roman stadiums in the beginning just for stating their belief
Hardly. There were a couple minor purges sparked in large part due to subversive activities. Granted, the Emperor was pretty fucked up, so I'm not saying that they were wrong to work against his authority, but let's not pretend it was just for their religion.
The Romans were more tolerant of other religions than damn near any other society in history.
Of course, after a brief period with some purges, Christians took over the empire and the current dogma was arrived at as a method of achieving political control. Make up some new c
Magic: The Gathering came up with the idea of turning cards 90-degrees to mark them as "played", and no one else can use that idea. Period.
They patented *that*?!? And were granted it?!?
How TF did that work?
First, whose to say that the problem you name isn't caused by Unix lying about whether "foo.html" and "Foo.html" are different files?
Because there was no unix system involved in that.
It was Windows explorer versus command line. The problems showed up when the files were copied to a unix system because the documents referenced in the links didn't match the actual file names.
Here's where the lie happened. I looked at files in explorer. I changed the name of a file from, say, FOO.html to foo.html.
Explorer told me it changed the name. It didn't.
Opening a command window and typing dir showed the *actual* name of the file.
move FOO.html foo.html *did* change the name.
That is badly broken behavior.
Where should the lies end? Why should they end with a case sensitive file system?
None of your examples are similar at all.
You cannot base a scientific theory entirely on assertions.
Nothing about god, religion or faith is scientific, so you're really not making any sense.
My evidence is personal, not the type that you can call scientific, unless you're willing to reproduce them according to what the New Testament says.
By which you mean that you have no evidence whatsoever.
Just because you had a delusion, a hallucination, or are so desperate to believe something so silly, that you'll convince yourself it's god is not evidence of any sort.
The reference to S. Hawking was to prove that science has nothing to do with your claims about the existence of God. Who said Hawking is an authority?
You did: "What makes you think you know more than him about this issue? "
There are lots of scientists that think otherwise;
Another appeal to authority. So. Fucking. What?
You still fail to state the reason that such a belief is "ludicrous", as no sane person believes in fairies, fairies don't have the ability to affect your life and not much in the fairy belief can be observed and reproduced.
I never said that religious people were sane. You just made clear why it's ludicrous.
The universe can be observed.
But god can't. You presumably think it's because he's a prankster although you lack the integrity to admit that's equivalent to whatever nonsense you will say you actually think.
Please don't start the nonsense about flying monsters and teacups.
You're the only one promoting nonsense. You might want to deal with that first.
What are the high(!) standards that allow a hypothesis to be considered by you?
where do you get off claiming that asking for *any evidence at all of any sort whatsoever* is high standards?
Are they higher than the standards of all the scientists in the world?!
Don't you ever get tired of making yourself a fool by repeating the same logical fallacies over and over again?
So what? You're talking about the entire human history, I suppose
I am and you lose again. Deal with the fact that the entire history of your religion was brutal and murderous. That's how it was spread and those who didn't accept it were burned alive among many other gruesome tortures for the "crime" of not buying into your bullshit.
If I give you a cross to hold, should you be considered a Christian?
I certainly hope not. I have morals, integrity and am a decent human being.
How can their actions be compatible with the teaching of Jesus?
What do the teachings of Jesus have to do with being a Christian? If you're going to pretend that's in any way related then you're going to have a really hard time naming 10 Christians in the history of the world.
I mean, that's assuming there ever was such a person for which there is likewise no evidence whatsoever.
Nevertheless, the ideology has its roots in atheism.
Regardless, blind faith even in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is a religion.
What have you replaced God with?
Again, we're back to the root of your fundamental failure. Really it's your parent's fault for being so abusive to you before you were old enough to think rationally.
I do not have a god shaped hole in my brain. I am not damaged to that degree. I did not replace god with anything because there never was a god. I never for one second in my life bought into such a transparent scam.
There never was a god, I never was so worthless and weak as to need one so I've never needed to replace it.
I really do pity you because you were badly abused to the point that your brain is damaged so badly that you most likely are not even capable of understanding that.
Where is the evidence?
You keep claiming that your magical invisible fairy has some intrinsic value as an idea.
You keep failing to provide any evidence.
Do you kn
It seems kind of circular to me to say that faith is a prerequisite to finding the evidence.
It absolutely is. That's why I busted him for begging the question. He just keeps doing the same thing pretending that he's making any sense.
How do you know that the reason God doesn't exist is that the notion has been invented by humans?
I don't. Nor does that even make any sense.
The "reason" god doesn't exist is nonsensical.
That he doesn't exist is just the only reasonable assertion given the complete and total lack of any evidence.
Again, you're presuming that there is some merit to the very idea without ever offering any justification for it.
What makes you think you know more than him about this issue?
The fact that I know that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Doubly so when the authority isn't an authority on the topic under discussion.
OK, technically that's how I know that I know more than *you*.
"I don't have faith god doesn't exist" Where's your evidence then?
Evidence of what?
Until *you* can provide any evidence for your insane assertion that there's an invisible fairy in the sky I don't need any evidence to reject something so ludicrous out of hand.
There is no magical automatic merit given to magical fairies, you'll have to present some before your idiotic idea will even be considered by me.
You're probably not aware that the 3rd Reich ideology was based on Neitzsche's superhuman, which is the basis for atheism for some people even today.Many also claim that Nietzsche's work is the ideological basis of communism.
Right...Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
We're talking about regimes that caused the vast majority of deaths throughout history. What's your argument again?
You're talking about two regimes over part of one century.
Further, the Nazis were explicitly and aggressively Christian.
Communism replaced "God" with "The State". It's no less of a religion and an "idiotic belief system".
So, sorry that you thought that you had a point. Perhaps you should actually think rather than repeating bullshit that nutjob liars tell you to keep you buying their bullshit in the face of all evidence?
5 minutes of research would have let you know the Nazis were extremist Christians yet you couldn't even be bothered with that before lying. You might want to address that serious deep seated issue you have with integrity.
Surely you mean agnostic not atheist.
Even more surely, I don't.
I wasn't born doubting god. I was born, as were you, with zero belief in any such thing.
You're again confusing agnosticism and atheism.
No, that would be you.
Agnosticism is the belief that the nature or existence of God is unknowable, or perhaps doubt as to the existence of god.
Atheism == without belief in god or gods.
Until most people are fucked over by abusive parents, they have *no* belief in any such ridiculous idea. Everybody without exception is born an atheist.
The writings of Flavius Josephus mention Jesus. There are several versions of these scripts, and some have been edited to contain things such as "He was the Messiah". Latest research was able to identify what was modified, and the conclusion was that Jesus and his followers are mentioned, but not that he was described as the Messiah by Flavius Josephus.
Not so.
Depending on how charitable the expert is, the Josephus document's mention of Jesus was either added later maliciously, or as an error in transcription.
It fits neither the style, nor the flow of the document.
but from what I learned so far, the account of Flavius Josephus seems pretty authentic.
Here's some more to learn then