Cyclist wrote:

Hypothetical question. Would God be pleased if every Muslim converted to Christianity, lets say….First Christian Church? Which as you know are kissing cousins to coC.

johnheadHypothetical question. If Santa Clause were to loose weight would he not be able to deliver presents faster because the reindeer could fly faster? Let’s say he lost half his current weight, would that mean that the sled would fly twice as fast?

Answering that question is as pointless as attempting to answer yours.


Cyclist wrote:

I didn’t ask you asshat. Why do you feel the need to insert yourself in conversations between other people? Besides your input is rarely intelligent or insightful.

johnheadI know you didn’t ask this ass-hat anything.  I felt like inserting myself because it’s fun, not to mention this is a public forum.

My input is "rarely intelligent or insightful" says the man debating the wants and desires of an imaginary, invisible being.  Yea, your views about my intelligence or insight do not carry much weight when your idea of intelligence and insight revolves around magic and superstition.

Why not tackle these problems why you are at it.  How does the tooth fairy afford to pay every child for their teeth?  What does the tooth fairy do with the teeth?  Do you think the tooth fairy resents Santa getting milk and cookies?  Why does the Easter Bunny lay eggs when rabbits are mammals?

I figure if you’ve found the answers to the mysteries of one invisible being you might be able to answer those mysteries as well.

Cyclist wrote:

Again, you compare God with children’s fairy tales, how bright you are. You’ll know the difference one day but unfortunately for you it will be too late. Have fun with your useless and pointless life.

johnheadI am not just comparing your god to children’s fairy tales; I am outright telling you that your god is nothing but a children’s fairy tale. Your god’s inability to act upon reality is indistinguishable from the inability of Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny to act upon reality.  There is a book about your god and there are books about the other guys. Your god requires faith to be believed, so do those other guys.

You are even using your god to instill fear just like stories about the bogey-man, who isn’t real either you will notice.  I’m a grown adult, stories about monsters hiding in the dark no longer scare me and, unlike you, similar stories about celestial monsters coming for me after I die no longer scare me either.

Threats of Hell and Damnation are the last resort of religion.  You have given up attempting to demonstrate your god claim with evidence or reason and that frustrates you.  Instead of considering that you might be wrong and were taken in by a children’s fairy tale, at the cost of your ego, it feels better to tell me that I will be burned alive forever at the hands of your celestial monster a.k.a. GOD.

Cyclist wrote:

Dude, I am far from frustrated. Your just not worth wasting anymore time on and I really don’t feel the need to try and prove anything to someone as closed minded and lacking of any real intellect as you. You seem to really enjoy adding ridicule into all your post in regards to people who do believe and it frustrates you that people are not wowed by your insights.

When you start using ridicule and sarcasm, you have lost.

johnheadIf you’re not frustrated then what are you?  It’s not a polite reaction to tell another individual who says they have not reason to believe anything you say regarding knowledge of a god that they will be tormented for all eternity.  It’s actually kind of sick when you think about it.  I’m sure you would never willingly drop someone into a huge fire pit and then take pleasure from the sight and sound of that person writhing in agony, even for the amount of time it would take them to actually die.

It really says something about your religion and the god you claim exists when you write that not only will I be burned alive after I die but that the writhing and agony will never end; that somehow I deserve to burn in agony forever simply because I refuse to accept what you are asserting as fact without convincing evidence.

I love how you manage to convince yourself that someone who is CONSTANTLY ASKING YOU FOR EVIDENCE is somehow close-minded.  An actual close-minded person refuses to consider an idea no matter what.  Not only have I considered the idea of religion and your specific god, for many years I believed what you are saying to be correct.  Now that I have the ability to apply reason and a willingness to objectively examine evidence, I find that that the reasons and so-called evidence for your god are fallacious. Examining a claim and making the determination that it the claim is unsubstantiated is NOT closed-minded.

The kind of open-mindedness you are advocating is actually called credulity which is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge.  That type of open-mindedness is not the good kind.  Real intellect is being able to discern between the good and the bad open-mindedness.

I do really enjoy ridiculing your claims but I do so for a good reason.  I find ridicule to be an awesome tool in revealing absurdities.  The magical claims in the bible are in fact ridiculous, strip away the religious reverence and voila, instant ridicule.  I’m not frustrated by your failure to see bull-$hit when it’s right in front of you.  I look forward to the next ridiculous argument you come up with attempting to make sense of all the bull-$hit so I can expose it too.

You are incorrect in your belief that ridicule and sarcasm loose debates.  Ridicule and sarcasm are valid tools when used to in concert with valid logic to refute a claim.

Cyclist wrote:

People resort to ridicule and sarcasm when they have nothing worthwhile or relevant to add. Valid arguments don’t need ridicule or sarcasm to prove a point, nor do people who have something intelligent to say. An intelligent argument can stand on its own and has no need for ridicule and sarcasm. An intelligent person can make their arguments without the use of ridicule and sarcasm.

You have exposed nothing except your inability to make an argument without ridicule and sarcasm.

johnheadWrong. Have you ever laughed at a comedian? If so you were probably laughing at his having ridiculed something or addressing something with sarcasm. Those things do not preclude the comedian being correct about something worthwhile or relevant.

You are technically correct when you say arguments do not need ridicule or sarcasm to be valid; with that I will agree.

Let me see if this helps. Ridicule and Sarcasm are not needed in the same way that PECAN PIE doesn’t need to be WARM or served with VANILLA ICE-CREAM. Although I could eat cold PECAN PIE, as valid and intelligent as it may be by itself, if I can make it hot and throw a scoop of vanilla on that bitch, I’m going to do that instead. The heat and ice-cream just drive home the flavor of the PECAN PIE.  Likewise, ridicule and sarcasm drive home the absurdity of your religious claims and arguments.  Your claims and arguments are ridiculous, I am just ‘driving home the flavor’.

What I expose with every post is that your god is nothing but a figment of the imagination and you can’t stand it when I show you using ridicule and sarcasm.

lowboy wrote:

i dont know if it was a big bang but something sure as hell blew up and that is why all those meteors are hitting us.

maybe blowing it up was gods way to start the creation and considering the way it was put back together it takes a fool not to believe a higher power did not have a hand in doing it.

It moves better than a rolex watch.

johnheadMore precisely, space-time inflated. There is a long chain of events which lead to the existence of meteors but needless to say we have a very good explanation of their origins.

A fool is the one who claims "it was put back together" by some magical invisible man.  We know the fundamental forces of nature which lead to star formation and planetary accretion. We know which of those forces gave rise to chemistry and the operations of life.

The fool is the one who has failed to educate themselves on these discoveries and instead relies upon ancient myths and legends to conclude that a being with a mind and a will just did it all in six days.  The fool ignores the fact that his explanation actually explains nothing whatsoever. Magic is not an answer, it is an excuse for ignorance.

Please tell me how you draw a comparison between the cosmos and a Rolex watch?

lowboy wrote:

the cosmos design is perfect. arolex watch near perfect. only a fool would not know the difference.even the most expensive timepiece requires adjustment. the cosmos is perfect and to my knowledge has never neede adjustment.

you are a fucking idiot not to know perfection is more than an accident and something mankind can never achieve.

johnheadCall me a fool if you like but I think your reasoning is flawed.  First off, what is your definition of perfect?  Second, if the cosmos is "perfect" then please describe how an "imperfect" cosmos would appear.

You continue to draw a correlation between a watch and the cosmos but we know that a watch is man-made because watches do not occur naturally but the cosmos IS all that is NATURAL.  We know that a watch has a purpose because man built it for a purpose, to measure the passage of time in distinct units which we humans have defined based on things we observe in NATURE.

You may call me all the names in the book but you are the one asserting perfection and being completely unwilling or unable to explain what it is about the cosmos that makes it PERFECT.

The fact that mankind cannot reproduce the entire cosmos has no bearing on your argument.  Our inability to craft something we observe in nature does not infer that it was crafted by something or someone else nor to then conjure up a specific deity that gives the remotest shit about any of us.

So please explain to this foolish fucking idiot how you came to the conclusion that the cosmos is perfect and what an imperfect cosmos would look like.

lowboy wrote:

you have just answered all your questions yourself. re-read your post.

has to be magic or i got a bad case of, if you dont know, i aint gonna tell ya.

johnheadThank you for surrendering the argument.  You could have be intellectually honest and just admitted your argument is flawed instead of asserting that my question to you was simultaneously my own answer as if that makes sense in any sort of rational reality.

I asked you to support your assertion of a "perfect cosmos" by describing an "imperfect cosmos" and the best thing you can manage is "you have just answered all your questions"? Then follow that up with "if [I] don’t know then [you] aint gonna tell [me]"

Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

lowboy wrote:




johnheadAgain, you keep employing the word perfection without justification.  The word "perfect" is intended to distinguish one thing from everything else.  For example, I could assert that in my opinion a certain woman has a ‘perfect’ body only because I could provide examples of other women with ‘imperfect’ bodies for comparison.  I could assert that a certain object is perfectly spherical or perfectly circular because I can cite examples of objects which are neither.

You keep writing that the cosmos is ‘perfect’ yet we only know of one cosmos, there is nothing from which our cosmos may be distinguished.  It is therefore dishonest and irrational to assert that what we observe is perfect unless you can answer the necessary question, compared to what?  If, as you say, there is no ‘imperfect cosmos’ then there can be no ‘perfect cosmos’ for the same reason you cannot have ‘up’ without a ‘down’ or ‘front’ without a ‘back’.  Your argument from perfection is fallacious.

You say everything we observe is perfectly synced?  Again I have to ask, what would an out of sync cosmos look like?  The cosmos is predictable because the laws of gravity and electromagnetism are universal.  Gravity pulls things into balls and causes massive things to orbit each other.  Electromagnetism gives rise to stars and eventually life.  The cosmos simply IS the way it IS and there is no evidence thus far that some super intelligent being has spend eons mucking about in our one little galaxy, with our one little solar system, on this one little rock for 4.5 billion years just to finally make YOU and ME.

The cosmos is also not an accident.  Accidents are events which occur contrary to intended events.  There is no evidence of intent therefore cosmos we observe cannot be accidental.

Lastly, inflation does not result in perfection because, as I have pointed out, the cosmos is not ‘perfect’; it just exists.

Dude wrote:

Let me ask you atheists something. Can you "prove" that love exists? Is there a scientific method that can conclusively prove that love exists? No. But do you love your children, parents, siblings or spouse? Sure you do. Well…..prove it scientifically.

johnheadLove by its very nature is immaterial.  Love, like hate, is the label we use to describe what motivates certain behaviors we observe in humans.  I can provide evidence of love insomuch as I can point to examples of certain actions which carry that label.

I am sexually faithful to my wife.  I provide for her well-being with food and shelter.  I tend to her needs when they arise and protect her from harm.  My selfless behavior toward my wife is indicative of what we collectively label love.  Love and hate are abstract concepts and not something which can be directly measured and quantified.  They are just employed to describe human emotional and physical reactions.

Now, if we define love and hate by their corresponding physiological reactions then you could scientifically prove they exist by constructing an experiment which shows physiological reaction [A] occurs when people report loving something and physiological reaction [B] occurs when people report hating something.

Ultimately though LOVE is a human construct to describe strong emotional connections we form with other humans or sometimes animals or even inanimate objects.  One reason we know it is real is because we are able to ask each other the question and get a real answer.  On the other hand, your GOD does not answer questions in any meaningful objective manner.  Your GOD does not act in any way distinguishable from every day natural and random events.  There is no scientific method that can conclusively prove that your god exists outside the confines of your imagination.

We can dance the philosophical dance all day, my inability to convince you scientifically that love exists adds not one iota of weight behind your assertion that god is real.  At the very least I will concede that your god is as real as love in the sense that both ideas are creations of the human mind.