Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[Lentern]

its your argument you moron. i dont give a fuck newton believed in god, it just proves he was complete retard with philosophy and religion.

Don't be rude it is uncalled for. I did not raise the names of Einstein, Galileo and Newton to be patrons of my view simply to combat the suggestion that any atheist is smarter than anyone with religious inclinations which was made before.

No, you are arrogant. You come in here attacking us for considering the possibility that no supernatural beings exist (even though you'll find we are defending it as possibility, not fact) and then go on to say things like "the only logical conclusion is that a supernatural being started it all".

Hypocrite.

That isn't arrogant it is sensible.

 

[Lentern]

You pretty much essentially said we were 'atheist zealots' for considering the possibility of no supernatural entity, based solely on your intuition (which, for the record, you were happy for a supernatural entity to violate).

We weren't claiming that no supernatural entity existed, rather that it's entirely feasible based on what we currently know for no supernatural being to exist. This was not acceptable to you, as you required absolute complicity with the notion that a supernatural being is at some level behind the universe.

Who is we? Or has your arrogance extended to the state of using the royal pronoun?

 

[Slidey]

That isn't arrogant it is sensible.

It is short-sighted, arrogant and intolerant, and that's fairly obvious to anybody reading. All the things you claim to be opposing whilst hiding under the guise of 'agnostic' when really you're just a theist who doesn't believe strictly in organised religion, but is still amazingly willing to vilify a true agnostic or atheists as an affront to his theistic notion of creation.

 

[Slidey]

Summary of Lentern's thoughts: "You don't believe in a supernatural force? You are an idiot!"

 

[Lentern]

It is short-sighted, arrogant and intolerant, and that's fairly obvious to anybody reading. All the things you claim to be opposing whilst hiding under the guise of 'agnostic' when really you're just a theist who doesn't believe strictly in organised religion, but is still amazingly willing to vilify a true agnostic or atheists as an affront to his theistic notion of creation.

Where did I claim to be agnostic? I'm an unashamed catholic. I don't consider it intollerant or short sighted to call the impossible impossible.

 

[Lentern]

well newton was pretty fucking stupid to say the bible was entirely correct both literally and historically wasnt he?

Not stupid, but probably wrong.

everything comes down to intuition? lol that makes intuitive sense doesnt it

Everything does not come down to intuition that is not what I said.

 

[Slidey]

Where did I claim to be agnostic? I'm an unashamed catholic. I don't consider it intollerant or short sighted to call the impossible impossible.

Well mate, it's pretty short-sighted to call something impossible when you have no clue about how it works.

It's also pretty irrational to claim something's impossible through science (even though you don't know that; you're just pulling out of your arse), and then claim it must have been a supernatural being that is even more impossible.

You have little knowledge of mathematics, you have little knowledge of physics, you have little knowledge of biology, you have little knowledge of chemistry, you have little knowledge of geology. What do you know anyway?

Exactly why should we take you seriously with your claims about how "science can't explain the universe, therefore my intuition, which tells me it is a supernatural being, is correct"?

 

[Lentern]

Summary of Lentern's thoughts: "You don't believe in a supernatural force? You are an idiot!"

If you don't believe there at some point in existance was a force that acted above the laws of science as they stand today you are deluded. You may still be quite intelligent.

 

[Slidey]

If you don't believe there at some point in existance was a force that acted above the laws of science as they stand today you are deluded. You may still be quite intelligent.

How open-minded of you.

 

[Lentern]

Well mate, it's pretty short-sighted to call something impossible when you have no clue about how it works.

It's also pretty irrational to claim something's impossible through science (even though you don't know that; you're just pulling out of your arse), and then claim it must have been a supernatural being that is even more impossible.

Come now, you've all but conceded you just reject terminology that has a stigma. All the theories you people have put forward are incredibly speculative and dependant on the imagination patching up gigantic gaps. You just don't like to use the same terms as us ignorant believers.

You have little knowledge of mathematics, you have little knowledge of physics, you have little knowledge of biology, you have little knowledge of chemistry, you have little knowledge of geology. What do you know anyway?

Should a scientist be denied the vote for not being a political expert? Which by the way is my main thing, politics and that which surrounds it, histories, social sciences etc.

Exactly why should we take you seriously with your claims about how "science can't explain the universe, therefore my intuition, which tells me it is a supernatural being, is correct"?

Because you're exactly the same sans the phrasing.

 

[Lentern]

How open-minded of you.

Reasonably

 

[Lentern]

And the existance of an ever-present, all powerful spiritual body is now less speculative and dependant on the imagination?

No. I can't possibly imagine why you've responded with that.

 

[Kwayera]

All the theories you people have put forward are incredibly speculative and dependant on the imagination patching up gigantic gaps. You just don't like to use the same terms as us ignorant believers.

Incorrect. It's called maths, dear.

Should a scientist be denied the vote for not being a political expert? Which by the way is my main thing, politics and that which surrounds it, histories, social sciences etc.

I'm sorry, but it has to be said. Are you retarded?

 

[Lentern]

I'm trying to understand why you believe the scientific explanation for things to be so farfetched, yet the creationist standpoint to be more logically sound.

That's all.

You know the old cliche'd skit where the kid asks the parent to explain something and then when he gets his answer says why and why again to every subequent answer after that? It's kind of like that, you try and explain this with logic and there's allways going to be a why and no matter how long you spend looking you're eventually going to reach a why where the answer is "because whatever caused this doesn't follow the rules."

 

[Lentern]

Incorrect. It's called maths, dear.

Can one of the other science advocates whom have since rejected my calling the atheists please second this. I want to see how many of you are so deep into lala land you think you have the formula to everything. The theories claimbed to be scientific are almost entirely speculative, you have a few pieces of evidence here and there, not much to go on but you've got an inkling where it goes so you make most of it up Arthur Evans style.

I'm sorry, but it has to be said. Are you retarded?

Oh yes very cute.

 

[Slidey]

I'm sorry, but it has to be said. Are you retarded?

I've been trying to hold that back, but it really is appropriate as he's fairly intellectually damaged.

 

[Lentern]

Creationism has an object or a being, that doesn't follow the rules, who's to say that the same can't be said of science?

I wouldn't consider it a science if it didn't follow the rules, hence the notion of a scientific law.

 

[Lentern]

I've been trying to hold that back, but it really is appropriate as he's fairly intellectually damaged.

How very opened minded and tolerant of those whose opinions differ from yours, of you.

 

[Lentern]

Yes, and you are the one and only individual that deems things to be science, or not.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have our all knowing being.

Lentern,.

Science is rules, hence scientific laws, if it is not bound by the laws, it is not science. Surely that is not an arrogant conclusion.

 

[Slidey]

Oh right, I get it now. Your Christian Superiority Complex is what causes your delusions.

Like a day or two ago I repeatedly pointed out to him that science doesn't actually place his illogical fabricated bounds on reality, but he just kept ignoring it.

At one time he told me that the universe follows known, undeniable causal laws, so I directed him to radioactive decay and he silently skipped over it.