Atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality.

He’s a one-trick pony
One trick is all that horse can do
He does one trick only
It’s the principle source of his revenue
And when he steps into the spotlight
You can feel the heat of his heart
Come rising through

See how he dances
See how he loops from side to side
See how he prances
The way his hooves just seem to glide
He’s just a one-trick pony, that’s all he is
But he turns that trick with pride

He makes it look so easy
He looks so clean
He moves like God’s
Immaculate machine
He makes me think about
All of these extra moves I make
And all this herky-jerky motion
And the bag of tricks it takes
To get me through my working day
One-trick pony

He’s a one-trick pony
He either fails or he succeeds
He gives his testimony
Then he relaxes in the weeds
He’s got one trick to last a lifetime
But that’s all a pony needs, that’s all he needs

He looks so easy
He looks so clean
He moves like God’s
Immaculate machine
He makes me think about
All of these extra moves I make
And all this herky-jerky motion
And the bag of tricks it takes
To get me through my working day,
One-trick pony
One-trick pony

One-trick pony, one-trick pony
One-trick pony, take me for a ride
One-trick pony

© 1980 Words and Music by Paul Simon

0 Replies

From Glennn:

Quote:

@Susmariosep,
Quote (by Glennn) from Susmariosep:
Dear readers here of this yours truly’s thread, when you are writing a research paper on the existence of God, you can introduce a new approach to the arguments of atheists, namely, that they i.e. their arguments are all in the core nothing but gobbledygook writing.

From Glennn:
We have only your opinion that this character exists. Did you know that?

Dear Glenn, I don't think I know you to be an atheist out and out.

And I can guess what is your point in your post above.

So, on the supposition that you are an atheist out and out, and there are readers here who want to do a research paper on the arguments of atheists against the existence of God, please present your argument step by step, how you come to the certainty that God does not exist.

And dear everyone here, we will see whether Glennn is into gobbledygook or into a rational exposition on how he got to be an atheist out and out.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

please present your argument step by step, how you come to the certainty that God does not exist.

You are using existence as proof that a particular being exists. Well, many beings exist. However, as to the existence of the particular being that you claim exists, we have only your opinion.

As to the steps taken to arrive at the conclusion that your opinion is wrong, there is actually only one step. And that step involves nothing more than the acknowledgement that any claim concerning the existence of a being in charge of everything must consist of more than just your opinion.

0 Replies

Dear Glennn, you are now into gobbledygook.

I am asking you point blank, are you an out and out atheist or not.

And if yes, please present you step by step rational account of why and how you come to adopt the brand of an out and out atheist.

I see only gobbledygook in your post.

Come forth with your declaration that you are an out and out atheist.

Next, come forth if you be an out and out atheist, your step by step argument or presentation of a rational account from you: why and how you come to become an out and out atheist.

No need to go into your gobbledygook about my opinion whatsoever.

That only makes clear to readers that you both don't have a rational account of why and how you get to become an out and out atheist – if you be an out and out atheist; and you are into gobbledygook with harping on my opinion whatever.
__________________
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[/b]

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Dearest follower, you may not have a very deep or even the most shallow knowledge of the world's religions, however you did list the correct definition of gobbledegook. Congratulations on reprinting the slang definition, however I am forced to deduct points from your final grade for not using the slang in an accurate fashion. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk. Please review every single post you have written here and please with great kindness try and understand where you creeped up.

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"

Dear student, shape up or you will flunk your 'God' 'no God' class. I'm very concerned that you will not be able to keep up with the rest of the class. If you cannot keep up please use your God given intellect and drop out before you fail. You can retake the class when you can keep up with actual students. Good luck and may God smile on you because the rest of the forum is chuckling.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

Alas, for the moment the troll is winning because 'chuckling' is grist to the mill of his missionary activity involving his 'superior intellect' Short of assassination, silence is the only deterrent. He simply cashes in on forums like this with no tangible banning policy, by emerging from his mental hole from time to time looking for fresh meat.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Dear glitterbag, you inform me:
"I am forced to deduct points from your final grade for not using the slang in an accurate fashion."

Are you a moderator here or an administrator here?

How do I know who are mods and admins?

When you as a person of power here, deduct points, when do I get banned for so much points as to deserve getting banned?

Or are you into gobbledygook, and I want to think that my signature on what is gobbledygook is not any slang definition, not at all.
____________________
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

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

It was a JOKE. Geez. She was metaphorically treating you as the class dunce taking a course you were woefully unprepared to undertake. Metaphorically speaking, she was spot on

0 Replies

Let us all abstain from gobbledygook posting.

The thread is on "Atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality."

Here is my step by step argument on empirical reality that God exists.

Quote:

https://able2know.org/topic/439360-1#post-6579410

[ . . . . ]

The evidence is everywhere, starting with the nose on 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.

[Etc.]

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.

Dear atheist colleagues here, please also present your exposition step by step, on how you come to the non-existence of God, from empirical reality.

Modesty aside, I want to share what I know to be truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, share with people who come to read a2k in order to enhance their knowledge of empirical reality.
_____________________
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

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Susmariosep wrote:

Let us all abstain from gobbledygook posting.

OK. You start.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Your step by step argument is gobbldygook. Don't post the definition again. We all know the word, and you personify it. Your stp by step argument can be refuted by anyone who studied 10th grade biology. It's incredibly simplistic. Life has existed here for three billion years, most likely more. Life has gone through continuous change, which can be documented in the fossil record, from sub=single cell through steadily more complex forms. The change is constant, DNA is the record and the means of change. Evolution and DNA show no need for a god. That's the reality. Everything you propose is the gobbledeygook.

0 Replies

Oh dear....fresh meat in abundance ! At this rate the troll could exceed his record (eleswhere) of 13+ pages of the same repetitive supercilious garbage on a single thread !

0 Replies

Dear atheist colleagues here, I have not seen to date any step by step argument from you all, at all, by which you prove the non-existence of God, from empirical reality.

Here I will now again at the risk of incurring the charge of spamming, my step by step argument for the existence of God, by empirical reality.

Quote:

Post: # 6,579,410, by Susmariosep, Thu 18 Jan, 2018 02:40 pm

@ascribbler,
Dear ascribbler, you tell me:
"They are blind to your truth.
Please reveal the evidence so that they may see."

The evidence is everywhere, starting with the nose on 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.

_______________________
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

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Doesn't matter how many times you post the same thing. It's equally fallacious every time you do it. Get a kid's book on evoloution and try to understand it--I know you'll have a hard time, but TRY.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

From MontereyJack:

Quote:

Tue 20 Feb, 2018 01:12 am
@Susmariosep,
Doesn't matter how many times you post the same thing. It's equally fallacious every time you do it. Get a kid's book on evoloution [sic] and try to understand it--I know you'll have a hard time, but TRY.

Dear Monterey:

I think you have a very extreme case of self-confidence over nothing of any decent cognitive worth.

See what happens to you when I challenge you to say something that you can explain why it is the truth, the fact, the logic, and supported by the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Explain if you understand this statement from yours truly:

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

And also learn to not be into gobbledygook inside your brain, like churning out new species inside your brain, with mixing random mutation and natural selection, all inside your brain.

And please not with your extreme self-confidence of knowing things, while you cannot I am sure explain what you understand if at all this statement from me:

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

Dear readers here, I am also of the self-confidence that I am sharing with you the idea of how to think on truths, facts, logic, and in accordance with the best thoughts of mankind, instead of regurgitating empty thoughts like what you find in "a kid's book on evoloution [sic]," which is Monterrey's most favored database.

____________________
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

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Fatuous amphigoric folderol:

Quote:

The evidence is everywhere, starting with the nose on 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.

1 Reply

@ekename,

Quote:

Fatuous amphigoric folderol

If the troll had any brains or understanding of logic, he might chastise you for this threefold tautology. However he is simply gratified every time his claptrap is repeated.

0 Replies

Dear readers here, I hope that you are reading something useful from my posting here.

To all out and out atheists here, please read a post from a thinker in another forum, that should motivate you to do some genuine thinking on empirical reality, as to produce a step by step explanation on why and how you out and out atheists adopt the brand of atheist, see Annex below.

I take this occasion to commend most sincerely the goodness of the founders and owners and operators of this a2k forum, for it is a welcome venue for me to share my thinking with all men who truly seek to enhance their knowledge of empirical reality.

For unless people are acquainted with empirical reality, they could end up with nothing in their heart and mind but gobbledygook dreaming and gobbledygook talking.

Annex

Quote:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/315608-god-from-the-investigation-of-existence/?do=findComment&comment=6377637

Dear posters here who are out and out atheists, you see I am working on the idea that out and out atheists have nothing to show in regard to their any step by step explanation of: why and how they come to hold to the brand of their being atheist.

When they do appear to produce any explanation at all on why and how they get to adopt the brand name of atheist, they are in fact not into any rational explanation, but into gobbledygook.

You don't accept that?

Okay, at the risk of extremely antagonizing you all out and out atheists, I challenge you to produce a rational explanation of why and how you become atheist.
________________________

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

0 Replies

Thanks for coming back, owing to the goodness of the founders, owners, operators, and other officials of this a2k forum.

Okay, please disabuse yourselves from accusing me of proselytizing you folks here.

All I want is to engage in an intelligent exchange of thoughts with you guys here.

And that on philosophical grounds, it just happens that the topic is on God existing, so the exchange is on God from philosophy, not from any faith religion.

So, let me start again, how have you atheists here come to the conclusion that God does not exist, i.e. on philosophical grounds?

0 Replies

The topic here is "Atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality," and that on philosophy inquiry, not on any faith religion.

Would you dear colleagues be interested in an exchange on what is philosophy as distinct from religion?

You see, I fear that you dear colleagues here tend to equate God with religion, and that is rather naive from your part.

So, what do you say, would you be keen to exchange thoughts with me on the difference between philosophy and religion?

Tell me, you know Nietzsche, is he into philosophy or into religion, with his writing on God is dead?

1 Reply

Atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know