Flying Spaghetti Monster

[True Scotsman]

Wow. You admit that you don't understand the argument but you claim it is invalid. You can't refute it but you won't concede. You claim that atheists are blinded. You ask for proof and then dismiss it without examining it.

Everyone take a good look at the face of intellectual dishonesty.

You need to go back to the kid's table. This is the adult table where serious people come to discuss ideas. Make verifiable claims and cogent arguments and you earn a place at the adults table. Make arbitrary claims and hold up the Urantia Book and you belong at the kid's table, where you can talk about anything you want to like unicorns and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow and spirit nodules but you don't have any adult responsibilities and no one takes you seriously.[/QUOTE}

Your primacy claims are a false foundation, from their I don't understand your points because they are contaminated by the all or nothing axioms that you attempt to pigeon hole people with. Not a lot of other rand fans here with you.

Is that true because you want it to be (primacy of consciousness) or is it true independent of anyone's conscious desires (the primacy of existence)?

 

[variant]

God made the universe for everyone but you are a childish debater so it goes over your head. God made it for you to even though you are hostile to him in your current state of mind.

To paraphrase:

God exists because I say so you stupid child!

 

[Colter]

Doesn't point directly to a God as the cause. A psychological placebo is more like it.

That's it, the boiler plate answer, its a "psychological placebo."

Note: the atheists didn't come up with a solution for alcoholism, rather they spend their days trying to save the world from religion.

 

[Colter]

Is that true because you want it to be (primacy of consciousness) or is it true independent of anyone's conscious desires (the primacy of existence)?

I don't believe in either the primacy of my conscience or existence.

 

[variant]

That's it, the boiler plate answer, its a "psychological placebo."

Note: the atheists didn't come up with a solution for alcoholism, rather they spend their days trying to save the world from religion.

There are secular solutions for alcoholism.

 

[Colter]

What does God have to do with it?

God is Love, God is the source of Love weather you respect and credit God or not.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is Love, God is the source of Love weather you respect and credit God or not.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

 

[Colter]

YOU claim that billions of religious people are wrong because they have religious beliefs that you reject.



Where is your evidence that God had anything to do with it?

Man is finite, God is infinite, all of us can only be relatively right about anything.


No amount of evidence will convince you, you will have to find God on your own or not.

 

[Loudmouth]

Man is finite, God is infinite,

Evidence for this claim, please.

No amount of evidence will convince you, you will have to find God on your own or not.

No amount of empty claims from theists will convince me, that is for sure.

Do you have evidence or not?

 

[bhsmte]

That's it, the boiler plate answer, its a "psychological placebo."

Note: the atheists didn't come up with a solution for alcoholism, rather they spend their days trying to save the world from religion.

Still nothing to support your claim.

 

[Colter]

Where is your evidence for this claim?

There is no evidence that will convince you, I've told you this many times now. Just like you have no evidence that God does not exist, that the God that we know is not real.

 

[Colter]

Still nothing to support your claim.

Still nothing to support your claim.

 

[Colter]

Evidence for this claim, please.



No amount of empty claims from theists will convince me, that is for sure.

Do you have evidence or not?

No amount of crafty intellectual snares will disprove God nor make your philosophy of death any more appealing.

 

[quatona]

There is no evidence that will convince you, I've told you this many times now.

Same as with the FSM.

Just like you have no evidence that God does not exist, that the God that we know is not real.

Same as with the FSM.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no evidence that will convince you, I've told you this many times now. Just like you have no evidence that God does not exist, that the God that we know is not real.

You still have not answered my question:

Also, please answer my question in regards to who you deem to be delusional. How do you determine if someone is worthy of this label? Do you believe former Christians who no longer believe are delusional?

 

[Colter]

Same as with the FSM.

Same as with the FSM.

But you have no faith in the fake FSM God, we do have real faith in our God. The entire charade is just a mockery.

 

[Colter]

You still have not answered my question:

Also, please answer my question in regards to who you deem to be delusional. How do you determine if someone is worthy of this label? Do you believe former Christians who no longer believe are delusional?

I did answer your question, I used the term delusional as a hypothetical. I said that if the Christian community that you were born into were just delusional people to begin with then they will die just like you, nothing lost or gained. That is the last time I'm going to explain it to you.

 

[bhsmte]

I did answer your question, I used the term delusional as a hypothetical. I said that if the Christian community that you were born into were just delusional people to begin with then they will die just like you, nothing lost or gained. That is the last time I'm going to explain it to you.

Still didn't answer my question.

If a former Christian becomes an atheist, would you call them delusional?

 

[quatona]

But you have no faith in the fake FSM God, we do have real faith in our God.

And that someone has faith is evidence that their faith is justified? This circularity makes me all dizzy.

The entire charade is just a mockery.

No. You still haven´t understood the point. The reductio ad absurdum is part of the question whether there´s a working epistemology of the "supernatural".

 

[bhsmte]

Still nothing to support your claim.

What claim did I make?