Value of Thought

Originally posted by lemon lime
That's the sort of 'argument' I often see coming from FMF... claims to have not seen something and then suggests I'm making it up. But there's a huge problem when you make this kind of assertion, because you must either assume 1. no one else has seen what I've reported seeing or 2. everyone else shares your inability to remember and take note of repeating themes.

It doesn't seem like much of a problem given that you never actually saw it nor did anyone else.

Originally posted by FMF
Ouch! I doubt FreakyKBH would want people reading that thread again! 😉

He seems quite comfortable with people reading this thread. He is either very thick skinned or just doesn't see it.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Nobody actually believes in or worships such a god.

.

Your posts are normally so accurate. 😲

That is some claim!

Originally posted by lemon lime
Now that I think about it you both follow the same script, so I suppose there's no reason why I shouldn't respond to comments coming from both of you as though they weren't coming from the same person.

Anyway, so now you're asking for my help in finding statements made by twhitehead and others because he's unable to remember discussions he was a part o ...[text shortened]... , I'll go away now and spend all of my time searching for exact quotes....

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Ah. The old tactic of making a claim about what someone has said in the past and then refusing to back it up because you can't be bothered. Of course you could make any claim you like that way and nobody can ever prove you wrong as the there is no way to quote things that were never said.

You have used this dishonest tactic at least 15 times in the past, when will you ever learn that you will get called on it?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Your posts are normally so accurate. 😲

That is some claim!

You really believe that people believe in and worship non-existent gods?

Every religion of note [that has a god or gods] has that god or gods actually doing stuff.

Nobody worships gods that don't interact with the universe in any way shape or form.

People bring up the possibility of such 'god's as concepts when trying to win debates with atheists.
But that's never actually the god they believe in.

Indeed, one has to seriously question the idea that a sentient being that doesn't interact with the universe
in any way shape or form and who's 'existence' is utterly indistinguishable from non-existence, qualifies for
the label 'god' in the first place.


And more to the point, given where this side track got started...

Given the absurdly low prior probability of a being as complex as a god existing [let alone being the first thing to exist]
and that the probability of that god then interacting with the universe [and caring* about us] but making sure it
was utterly undetectable [a trickster god] while still judging us for not believing in it is vastly lower still.
Then add in a Bayesian analysis with an input of zero evidence for such a god and huge amounts of evidence for a universe
that runs on rules and needs no god/s.....

And you have proof beyond any and all reasonable doubt that such beings don't exist.


People who believe in, worship, and pray to god/s. Are not imagining something that is indistinguishable from non-existence.
They are believing in something they think exists, and has [or has had] an effect in the world [and will again].
They believe in something detectable [in theory] by science. That we have not detected any such being, while gathering huge
evidence about our species tendency to invent such things....

Yeah, I have no truck with the argument that the question of god/s existence is somehow magically outside the realm of science
and somehow not just unanswered but unanswerable.


*caring in the sense that it pays attention to what we do and knows we exist/passes judgement on us etc as opposed to
necessarily caring for us.

Originally posted by lemon lime
That's the sort of 'argument' I often see coming from FMF... claims to have not seen something and then suggests I'm making it up. But there's a huge problem when you make this kind of assertion, because you must either assume 1. no one else has seen what I've reported seeing or 2. everyone else shares your inability to remember and take note of repeating themes.

It's option 1.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It's option 1.

You may well now be branded a "self-ordained" intellectual for crossing lemon lime. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
Ouch! I doubt FreakyKBH would want people reading that thread again! 😉

Au contraire, un peu.
I welcome any one who wants to read or re-read that nine year old thread.
Why?
Because just as with this one, the anti-religionists are faithful in one regard: you can count on them to get as off topic as possible with as much obfuscation as possible.
You can also count on them to employ such precious tactics as was witnessed in use by a certain ex-president, i.e., it depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

And, when all else fails, as we have seen in this thread, they will simply deny the very plain and obvious truth.
Example: when given concrete examples of the horizon being at eye level even while at the summit of Mt. Everest, one of the anti-religionists rejects the evidence claiming the angle of the camera confuses the truth.

You guys are individually and collectively pieces of work.
🙄

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I welcome any one who wants to read or re-read that nine year old thread.

I did read it. I thought you came completely unstuck on it.

Originally posted by FMF
I did read it. I thought you came completely unstuck on it.

Well of course you did.
Just as I am certain you totally and completely support those who are in opposition to what I've put forth here.
I can count on your allegiance to the opposite position literally each and every time, and the same can be said for the rest of your ilk.

Your little group of anti-religionists will (for the most part) band together with a most-predictable line of defense: either obscure and detract from the thing being said with endless (and needless) re-definitions, assert known and proven falsities, deny clear evidence of the opposing position, attack the person, or a combination of some or all of the above.

It's like clockwork.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just as I am certain you totally and completely support those who are in opposition to what I've put forth here.

Do you think this thread has gone well for you?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think this thread has gone well for you?

If, by "well for you," you mean my intentions have been made clear, then yes... as far as I have revealed them.
Everything I've said up to this point (with the exception of the admitted mistake earlier in the thread) has been in line with the facts.
And when I say "the facts," I'm speaking to things which can be verified, regardless of affiliation.

Another question might be: has this thread gone well for you?
You will have your opinion, of course, but it's pretty safe to say the answer is no.
Why?
Because you and your little group are beholden to an inflexible position, and not simply on the points raised here.
What makes this issue all the more profound is your collective group's insistence of using science as support.
Even when science and all that it entails totally and completely rejects your perspective, you stand defiant.

The best question, however, is has the truth been uncovered, revealed and accepted?
Sadly, as is the case with your group on literally every single topic ever covered in the entire time I've been on this site, while two parts of the three are affirmed, the final aspect is a resounding no.

Here's the question to you which you continue to avoid.

I have claimed herein how the horizon remains at eye level regardless of one's altitude, and as evidence, I suggested a view of pictures taken from the top of Mt. Everest or from the window of an airplane.
Do you acknowledge or reject my claim that the horizon remains at eye level regardless of one's altitude?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Do you acknowledge or reject my claim that the horizon remains at eye level regardless of one's altitude?

Are you talking about the horizon on a flat earth or a concave earth?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you talking about the horizon on a flat earth or a concave earth?

Are you seriously that effing dense?
Do you seriously not read what is put in front of you, to which you apparently are replying?
I've already described your group's tactics of stall, obfuscation, re-definition and the other crap to avoid actually answer point blank questions... and then you do it again?!?

Pound sand, jackass.

I'm talking about the horizon on this earth.
Either answer the question or sod off.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If, by "well for you," you mean my intentions have been made clear, then yes... as far as I have revealed them.
Everything I've said up to this point (with the exception of the admitted mistake earlier in the thread) has been in line with the facts.
And when I say "the facts," I'm speaking to things which can be verified, regardless of affiliation.

An ...[text shortened]... ledge or reject my claim that the horizon remains at eye level regardless of one's altitude?[/b]

The Horizon isn't @ eye level just looking out my window, And that's with trees on top of it.

I look down on my local horizon.

This is not a memory, or a picture, its what I am looking at right f*ing now.

You are a true idiot of the first order if you continue to claim that the horizon is always at 'eye level'
while I am physically tilting my head down to look at mine.


EDIT: Actually it's even better than that, one way I look down, the other way I look up.
Both cannot be at 'eye level'.