Atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality.

When someone makes an extraordinary claim, like the magic sky daddy, they have the burden of proof, no one is obliged to disprove the contention. I see that all you really have in your repertoire is more personal insults. I've reported your posts, and will continue to do so. Anyone at this site can post in this thread, so the only pathetic thing here is your silly command to me not to post in this clown car of a thread.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

And Oh atheists, you still have not prewented your step by step argument for the non-existence of God

Well there's only one step to the argument. My argument for the nonexistence of your god is that I only have your word that it exists.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

The evidence is everywhere, starting with the nose in our face.

We ask ourselves, where does the nose come from?

Answer:
1. The nose comes with the baby.
2. Baby comes from their papa and mama.
3. Papa and mama come from their in turn papas and mamas.
4. In this way we come to the first agent to have started the chain of baby coming from papa and mama.
5. That is the evidence, the nose in our face, or if you prefer the balls in your lower middle groin.
6. You ask, how come we can't see God, the first agent to have caused the existence of baby and papas and mamas?
7. Simple, because God is everywhere, and man cannot see something that is everywhere.
8. But man can reason from the nose on man's face or the balls in his lower middle groin,
9. As to come to the conclusion that there exists God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything wsith a beginning.

There, that is the exposition of how the nose or the balls in guys' lower middle groin is evidence: leading man to conclude to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

0 Replies

@ascribbler,

ascribbler, you say to me:
"Please reveal the evidence so that they may see."

You see, dear ascribbler, when you do not know what is evicence, it is a waste of time and labor from me to present evidence of God existing - do you understand that?

To make me know that you have any concept of evidence at all that you believe is the correct concept of evidence, simply give me an example of evidence: and don't forget to tell me what your example of evidence is evidence to or for what.

0 Replies

Dear all atheists here, do you notice that you cannot and therefore you do not have any at all step by step argument for the non-existence of God.

What you have are in effect lies against God.

You don't accept that you are lying?

Okay, you say there is no evidence for God existing, that is a lie, because in the first place you don't know what is evidence.

You know what is evidence?

Okay, present your concept of evidence and I will show you you are lying because your concept of evidence is all nonsense.

Go ahead, present your concept of evidence, and we will see it is not any concept at all that satisfies the role of evidence in the quest for truths facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

But as with everything brought up by atheists against God existing, it is a lie.

1 Reply

I have to now take some time out to research on whether there is a robot here that is deleting posts, which got published but then I notice later to be gone.

Or there are indeed hackers here, and they get away with their nefarious misdeeds because no one ever gets thrown out altogether in perpetuity.

For old-timers here, what do you say?

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

You are ten years too ate. The question has been debated over and over and over again, and the believers always get the worst of it. Don't just blather on. Look up all the thread topics and read them first, and then and only then start making the stupid posts.

0 Replies

Well, I guess you Oh ye atheists here, you do not have a step by step argument on no God existing.

Why this absence of any step by step argument against God existing?

Because your dna designed and actuated reason tells you that once you get down to empirical reality, you will face God existing, starting with the nose on your face.

Wherefore that is why for your self-preservation with your brand as atheist, you flee from any genuine attempt at a rational argument on God non-existing, in particular with grounding your intelligence on empirical reality.

Dear readers here, have you come across so far any argument in this thread from atheists here, proving that God does not exist?

No.

You see, it is my insight from years back in exchange of thoughts with atheists, namely, that their arguments or more really the case, not arguments but objections, they are all grounded on fictions inside their brain, instead of things in the objective world of empirical reality.

Take this allegation of one Setanta, he says that my proof for God existing is circular reasoning, and he gives his definition of what is circular reasoning.

Now, dear Setanta, that is your definition of circular reasoning, inside your mind/brain where you can deceive yourself without knowing it, namely, that you are deceiving yourself.

I challenge you to tell me, how I prove God existing, and show me why it is circular reasoning, wherefore nothing is proven at all.

Dear readers here, Setanta will again go away from the issue at hand, namely, tell me what is my proof for God and how it is circular reasoning.

All atheists do in fact are not any arguments or serious objections at all, but beating God with God as a strawman.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Susmariosep wrote:

I have to now take some time out to research on whether there is a robot here that is deleting posts, which got published but then I notice later to be gone.

Or there are indeed hackers here, and they get away with their nefarious misdeeds because no one ever gets thrown out altogether in perpetuity.

For old-timers here, what do you say?

More likely that they were pulled by the moderators because they violated one of the website's rules. The one on name-calling, for example.

1 Reply

@nimh,

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

It is clear to anybody with intelligence that 'believers' who spend their time preaching are either uncertain of their faith, or are on a celestial credit gathering mission to secure a place in their fantasy of 'an afterlife'.
Their childish activities do exactly the opposite of their assumed purpose...they bring into disrepute those 'quiet believers' whose charitable activities do some credit for the reputation of their particular 'belief club'. That point is the only aspect 'reality' worth discussing here.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Dear Fresco, you say (see below in Annex for quote of Fresco):
"That point is the only aspect 'reality' worth discussing here."

First, I like very much to know what is your concept of reality.

For I would not know what you are talking about unless you tell me what is your concept of reality.

Quote:

OP from Susmariosep
https://able2know.org/topic/439360-1#post-6577882

I have this insight that atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality.

Here, ask them why they don't accept the existence of God, and you will see that they are averse to the world of empirical reality.

But what is the meaning of the word averse?

See the hits from google on the meaning of the word averse:

Quote:

Google: averse

https://www.google.com/search?q=averse&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=0lheWv2NBdD48Aeb2q2oDw

About 13,200,000 results (0.49 seconds)
Search Results
Dictionary

adjective: averse
1. having a strong dislike of or opposition to something.
"as a former CIA director, he is not averse to secrecy"
synonyms: opposed to, against, antipathetic to, hostile to, ill-disposed to, resistant to;
disinclined to, reluctant to, unwilling to, loath to;
informalanti
"why are you so averse to being hospitalized?"
antonyms: keen
[ . . . . ]

Annex, quote from Fresco:
"@Susmariosep,
It is clear to anybody with intelligence that 'believers' who spend their time preaching are either uncertain of their faith, or are on a celestial credit gathering mission to secure a place in their fantasy of 'an afterlife'.
Their childish activities do exactly the opposite of their assumed purpose...they bring into disrepute those 'quiet believers' whose charitable activities do some credit for the reputation of their particular 'belief club'. That point is the only aspect 'reality' worth discussing here."

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints: see a filipino doctor and get what ever it is magically extracted.

Quote:

The evidence is everywhere, starting with the nose in our face.

We ask ourselves, where does the nose come from?

Answer:
1. The nose comes with the baby.
2. Baby comes from their papa and mama.
3. Papa and mama come from their in turn papas and mamas.
4. In this way we come to the first agent to have started the chain of baby coming from papa and mama.
5. That is the evidence, the nose in our face, or if you prefer the balls in your lower middle groin.
6. You ask, how come we can't see God, the first agent to have caused the existence of baby and papas and mamas?
7. Simple, because God is everywhere, and man cannot see something that is everywhere.
8. But man can reason from the nose on man's face or the balls in his lower middle groin,
9. As to come to the conclusion that there exists God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything wsith a beginning.

There, that is the exposition of how the nose or the balls in guys' lower middle groin is evidence: leading man to conclude to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

0 Replies

Dear Oh ye atheists here, let us do genuine thinking, grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence.

I challenge you all to tell mankind what is the first premise at all in any presentation i.e. argument that something exists in the objective world of empirical reality, that is outside and independent of our brain.

Here is my first premise without which anything coming after that first premise, including the first premise itself, is gobbledygook.*

Here is my first premise:

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

I challenge you all, Oh ye atheists, to tell mankind what is your first premise in proving anything at all, like Bigfoot or God or a soul in man exists; you have my first premise in the line immediately preceding, above.

*gobbledygook
noun

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
synonyms: gibberish, claptrap, nonsense, rubbish, balderdash, blather, garbage; informalmumbo jumbo, drivel, tripe, hogwash, baloney, bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock, phooey, hooey
"a letter full of legal gobbledygook"

Courtesy of google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gobb...bAFbL48Ae_joEo

https://www.google.com/search?q=gobb...Gqv48AfOi4HQAw

Annex

Quote:

Post: # 6,580,900, by ekename, Sat 20 Jan, 2018 07:49 pm

@Susmariosep,
Quote:
From Susmariosep:
The evidence is everywhere, starting with the nose in our face.

We ask ourselves, where does the nose come from?

Answer:
1. The nose comes with the baby.
2. Baby comes from their papa and mama.
3. Papa and mama come from their in turn papas and mamas.
4. In this way we come to the first agent to have started the chain of baby coming from papa and mama.
5. That is the evidence, the nose in our face, or if you prefer the balls in your lower middle groin.
6. You ask, how come we can't see God, the first agent to have caused the existence of baby and papas and mamas?
7. Simple, because God is everywhere, and man cannot see something that is everywhere.
8. But man can reason from the nose on man's face or the balls in his lower middle groin,
9. As to come to the conclusion that there exists God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

There, that is the exposition of how the nose or the balls in guys' lower middle groin is evidence: leading man to conclude to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

From Setanta
When someone makes an extraordinary claim, like the magic sky daddy, they have the burden of proof, no one is obliged to disprove the contention. I see that all you really have in your repertoire is more personal insults. I've reported your posts, and will continue to do so. Anyone at this site can post in this thread, so the only pathetic thing here is your silly command to me not to post in this clown car of a thread.

You say, "no one is obliged to disprove the contention [he does not make]."

That is not the rule in fact.

The rule in fact is that when anyone takes side in an issue, like on the question God exists or not, he is under burden to prove his side even though he is into denying the contention of the other party.

You see, when you take part in an issue, as on the positive side or as on the negative side, both parties are under burden to prove their respective claim, the positive side to prove the validity of his affirmative claim, like for example, the existence of God.

And the negative side to prove the negative claim that God does not exist.

The only time when a party is not under burden to prove any claim is when he does not make any claim, neither positive nor negative, but he is just into listening or reading as like on a fence.

You see, whether with the positive claim or with the negative claim, a human being is under burden to have reasons to adopt a position, whether positive or negative, in participating in an issue, like the existence of God or non-existence of God.

Why is this rule the true rule?

Simple: because humans for having a reasoning faculty cannot be acting according to reason when they talk without any grounds whatsoever: in defending a claim or in denying a claim.

This is not an insult to you, but my desire to tell you the genuine rule on who is under burden in a debate, whether as the positive proponent or as the negative proponent: and the rule is both sides, both the positive protagonist and the negative protagonist.

And again, the explanation why is because man is not free to defend or to deny a proposition without any reasons whatsoever: for that is not acting rational at all - and man above everything else and that is why he is different from non-rational entities, it is because he does not talk pro or contra a question without any reasons whatsoever: for that is to act irrationally and man is not allowed to act irrationally at all.

Now, you will challenge me why I say that man is not allowed to act irrationally.

And I will tell you, because such kinds of men are usually put in insane asylum by the sane society.

By the way, no theists are making the claim that there is a magic sky daddy, that is the claim of atheists among themselves.

0 Replies

You don't make rules here, or anywhere else. People who makes claims have the burden of proof. No one is obliged to disprove their claims.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Quote: From Susmariosep
I have this insight that atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality.

From hightor
You have a fundamental misunderstanding — atheists are averse to spiritual reality. There is no empirical evidence which substantiates the existence of supernatural beings.

You are not cognizant on what are the meanings of the words spiritual and supernatural.

They mean simply in effect entities or things which man cannot see or experience with his senses and his consciousness, but their existence are proven to exist with evidence from the objective world of empirical reality, like the nose on the face of man, and babies, and roses, and the sun in the day sky and the moon in the evening sky.

I like very much to invite you and me to exchange ideas on what is evidence.

Spiritual and/or supernatural entities or things are inferred from evidence in the objective world of empirical reality, like the nose on our face, babies, and roses, and the sun in the day sky and the moon in the evening sky.

Yes, let us we two talk about what is evidence by which we come to the existence of spiritual and/or supernatural entities or things.

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

I honestly don't know if "all ye atheists" are actually atheists. I think you may be suffering from some sort of "I'm really freaking smart" delusion.

So, all ye members other than Susmariosep, please report back to me with your lame undeveloped views by Friday noon, EST. This paper will count for 33 and a third points of this terms grade. Good luck young grasshoppers, and may you thrive and prosper. tick tock

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Skidmark.

You are on the improve, at least you've learnt that "baited breath" doesn't have an i in it.

More generally, however, you have a bad case of crimson and clover over and over crimson and clover over and over crimson and clover over and over ...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

From Setanta
You don't make rules here, or anywhere else. People who makes claims have the burden of proof. No one is obliged to disprove their claims.

I have seen you for the kind of talkers who make claims but never have any rational thinking supporting their gobbledygook talking.

You see, dear Setanta, when you write something in a forum which is for people to share their useful or insightful thoughts, please practice this very productive routine:

1. Think before writing, asking yourself the question, Do I have reasons to write what I am going to write: as to enrich readers in the furtherance of their knowledge of the totality of things in the objective world of empirical reality, or just making noise to garner attention to my unprofitable presence in the forum.

2. While you write, continue thinking as you write.

3. After you have written your post, read it carefully and take notice whether you have written something that is grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

4. Or you have just made noise, in which case, no need to write words, just screech like spoiled brats to get attention from grown-ups who are busy with adult concerns - or report some post to the powers that be here, because you feel neglected.

I will now keep away from you altogether.

0 Replies

Atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know