Why Everyone's Bored With Atheists

[Quag]

You either have decided to refuse to accept the truth about the possibility...or are intellectually unable to understand it.

You are essentially saying that it is impossible for a god to exist.

The burden of proof is on you.

I insist that it is POSSIBLE that at least one exists and it also is POSSIBLE that no gods exist.

I have no idea of what your brain is contorting that to mean, but that is your problem.

Burden of proof remains with you as you made the claim
More running form Frank you must be a world marathon champion, who refuses any attempt to support his false claim
As always the possibility or impossibility of God(s) remain unknown despite the reptition of falshoods from Frank who runs and runs and runs in cricles repeating a falshoods as if somehow that will make it true

 

[Quag]

It appears he has me on ignore which reveals his cowardice and hypocrisy. He has no responses to my destruction of his claims.

He never does he just repeats the claim as if somehow that will make it true
Logic is not his strong suit

 

[Frank Apisa]

Why would I put you on ignore? Its fun to watch you run

Well, you said it was unfortunate that I was here. I love the fact that you are here. And I love the fact that you are deluding yourself about me running away.

It has been refuted, it is wrong and you run from any attempt to support it

It has NOT been refuted. I cannot be refuted, because it is true.

You are wrong and running from any attempt to support your claim.

If you want to think that...fine with me. I actually enjoy watching someone insisting on delusions like you are doing.

Whatever reply you make to me will certainly not include any attempt to support your claim just more running on your part its literally all you do here, repeat a false claim and run from any attempt to defend it

And you will continue with this childish attempt to get me to run away.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Burden of proof remains with you as you made the claim
More running form Frank you must be a world marathon champion, who refuses any attempt to support his false claim
As always the possibility or impossibility of God(s) remain unknown despite the reptition of falshoods from Frank who runs and runs and runs in cricles repeating a falshoods as if somehow that will make it true

Another failed attempt.

Still amusing.

 

[devildavid]

Well, you said it was unfortunate that I was here. I love the fact that you are here. And I love the fact that you are deluding yourself about me running away.


It has NOT been refuted. I cannot be refuted, because it is true.


If you want to think that...fine with me. I actually enjoy watching someone insisting on delusions like you are doing.

And you will continue with this childish attempt to get me to run away.

Ain't gonna happen.

Your claim is not substantiated by saying so. I refuted you multiple times but you have me on ignore. The truth hurts.

 

[devildavid]

Another failed attempt.

Still amusing.

Another failure to back up your claim. Boring.

 

[Quag]

Another failed attempt.

Still amusing.

Another post where you run rather than attempt to support your false claim
What a surprise

 

[Quag]

Well, you said it was unfortunate that I was here. I love the fact that you are here. And I love the fact that you are deluding yourself about me running away.

Its unfortuante because there is the possibility that someone might not take the time to think about your false claims and nbeelive them to be true. You do remain amusing watchign youj run and run from any attemot to support your claim though

It has NOT been refuted. I cannot be refuted, because it is true.

It can and has your head in the sand ostrich imporession doesnt help you here

If you want to think that...fine with me. I actually enjoy watching someone insisting on delusions like you are doing.

Why am I not surprised that you like looking at yourself in a mirror?

And you will continue with this childish attempt to get me to run away.

Ain't gonna happen.

Im not trying to get you to run away, Im trying to get you to defend your claim instead all you do is run
But I do agree that will never happen

 

[Frank Apisa]

Another post where you run rather than attempt to support your false claim
What a surprise

Not running. I'm here for you. You seem to need me.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Its unfortuante because there is the possibility that someone might not take the time to think about your false claims and nbeelive them to be true. You do remain amusing watchign youj run and run from any attemot to support your claim though

It can and has your head in the sand ostrich imporession doesnt help you here

Why am I not surprised that you like looking at yourself in a mirror?

Im not trying to get you to run away, Im trying to get you to defend your claim instead all you do is run
But I do agree that will never happen

I'm still here. If you ever want to discuss the topic seriously, let me know.

 

[Quag]

Not running. I'm here for you. You seem to need me.

Still running from supporting your claim

 

[Quag]

I'm still here. If you ever want to discuss the topic seriously, let me know.

Ive been trying to get you to discuss it
Ill try again, instead of running try to defend your claim

 

[Frank Apisa]

Still running from supporting your claim

Nope. Not at all. What causes you to think that?

I'm still hoping for a reasonable discussion of the things about which we are currently having an unreasonable discussion.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Ive been trying to get you to discuss it
Ill try again, instead of running try to defend your claim

If you want to have a reasonable discussion on that...let me now.

I am not running away at all.

 

[Quag]

Nope. Not at all. What causes you to think that?

I'm still hoping for a reasonable discussion of the things about which we are currently having an unreasonable discussion.

Another post where instead of trying to support your claim you run

 

[Frank Apisa]

Another post where instead of trying to support your claim you run

I am not running anywhere. I am right here...hoping to have a reasonable, respectful conversation on the matter. When you get tired of that "running" nonsense, let me know and we can begin.

 

[Quag]

If you want to have a reasonable discussion on that...let me now.

Sure lets start with youj actually trying to support your claim

I am not running away at all.

Well since you refuse to even try to support your claim what else should I call it?
Flight? intellectual cowardice? Pick your term or better yet actually engange and try to defend your claim.
We both know you will never ever ever try to do that becaue you cant.

 

[Quag]

I am not running anywhere. I am right here...hoping to have a reasonable, respectful conversation on the matter. When you get tired of that "running" nonsense, let me know and we can begin.

Another post where instead of trying to defend your claim you run.
Try to have a bit of intellectual courage and at least make an attempt to defend your claim. No matter how pitiful it would be a nice change from you

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well since you refuse to even try to support your claim what else should I call it?
Flight? intellectual cowardice? Pick your term or better yet actually engange and try to defend your claim.
We both know you will never ever ever try to do that becaue you cant.

I have supported every claim I have made.

You may not agree with my contentions in my support, but we can discuss that as part of our discussions.

But first...it is obvious that I am not running away from anything. And if you think starting what I would like to be a respectful conversation with suggesting "intellectual cowardice" really is a terrible start.

Let's put all that kind of nonsense aside.

I'm not even sure which of the "claims" I have made that you think I have not defended.

If you are asking me to defend, "It is possible that no gods exist or that at least one does"...that defends itself.

It is self evident. It cannot be otherwise. (CC's 1/5th of a god might exist aside)

Either there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...or there is no sentient life on any of those planets.

Those kinds of statements need no further defense.

And that defense I have made many times here in this forum.

But perhaps it is something other than that for which you are asking a defense. Let me know...and I will defend that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Another post where instead of trying to defend your claim you run.
Try to have a bit of intellectual courage and at least make an attempt to defend your claim. No matter how pitiful it would be a nice change from you

Quag...let us have a decent, respectful, reasonable discussion of whatever is bothering you about my comments.

Stop with the insults. Let us show that we can be respectful and actually discuss what you are insisting you want to discuss.

 

[soylentgreen]

All of these assertions, like the post 2915 by Gordy, are based in the atheist assumption that the origins of belief in gods came about for immoral reasons. Since it's merely a rhetorical assumption it doesn't weaken the argument for the existence of a god at all, any more than you would agree than the abuses of Communism invalidate atheist philosophy.

On this I agree. We must keep the debate against church and religion apart from that of the debate of the existence of a god.
And we do have good evidence of the harm caused by religions and the churches.

When it comes to a god I am merely an atheist in that I lack a belief in a god and I find the reasoning flawed. But when it comes to church and religion I am a militant atheist and will strongly appose the stupidity and harm caused by institutions that do nothing more than lie and deceive for the only purpose of enriching themselves at the expense of the poor and uneducated.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's just a deflection from the critique of mutualism in the customary terms of scientific materialism. Your other examples, whatever they may be, may well conform to the model of scientific materialism. But that doesn't invalidate the example of the crocodile bird until one comes up with a materialistic way for the communication of bird and reptile to take place.

It is not a deflection to point out that cooperation between different species is both prevalent and diverse, . It is an observable fact that falls well within the definition of science. Evolution has made use of altruism as a survival factor. It benefits both the crocodile and the bird to act together.
But if you are wanting a specific materialist answer then look to the chemicals that make up the biology of the animal.
https://magazine.scienceforthepeople.org/vol24-3-cooperation/cooperation-in-animals/

From cooperative fish, for example, we have learned that neuropeptides released under stress (such as arginine vasotocin and isotocin12) and neurotransmitters (such as serotonin and dopamine) are major modulators not only of the cooperative tendencies of cleaners, but are also released in the clients’ brains to change how they behave in the mutual cleaning situation.

These neurochemicals mediate other fundamental mechanisms, such as reproduction or social challenges (for instance, avoiding a competitor or a predator); but evidence suggests they similarly modulate cooperative functions. For example, neuropeptides such as vasotocin and isotocin can regulate the appraisal of risk, making it easier for cleaners to cooperate with clients, which are potential predators. Dopamine is also involved in the assessment of risk, but it is mostly known as a major mediator of reward, which in conjunction with memory allows for anticipation.

 

[Ouroboros]

You seem confused what does any of the above have to do with your claim that I said social organization precludes divine revelation?

The post cited clearly shows that watsup made the claim about your beliefs and then refused to take responsibility for his factual error. You then backed him up without reading the posts in question, so you abetted his action without weighing any evidence-- the very thing atheists like to claim they're good at.

 

[Ouroboros]

When and where?

No you are the one who stated that they are religious when they need not be in fact they may not even be rituals but play acording to the article

You provided notthing to support that claim or the more important claim that religion is necessary for morals.

(1) Sealioning on your part. (2) No, you dismiss the possibility I raised because it hurts your argument, even though I've shown that your agreeable/disagreeable paradigm is no more provable than the proto-religion hypothesis. (3) Still not my argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

Agreed there are a lot of intelligent immoral people
As you seem to think incest is only moral issue and I have demostrated that some animals do avoid incest while not all humans do

Ive provided actual evidence as opposed to you who have provided none at all

See above

Only I never did that. I never claimed play was a ritual and neither did the article you are just makign things up here.

No I am saying religion is not required for morals you just keep adding in stuff I have never said to argue against strawmen

Ther you go making up stuff again as you have never mentioned rituals of play til now, you have only claimed repeatedly that rituals equal religion

You have yet to provide anything to support that watered down claim of religion is necessary for morals

(1) Still brought up incest to illustrate how different it is when human culture shapes behavior as opposed to the more inconsistent pre-cognitive behaviors of various animals. (2) Only in your own mind. You haven't even retracted your false rhetoric about animals' limited reasoning powers, despite the counter-examples provided. Proof of your inhabiting an echo chamber. (30 More of the same. (4) No, you chose to dismiss my citation because of an untenable distinction you made. (5) And your definition of morals is too elastic, oriented only upon nullifying religion's cultural significance. (6) I'm not responsible for you missing my statements. (7) Still not my position, but by all means keep making the claim 'cause it's funny.