Evil Inherent in All and Active in a %

[Reflex]

You can't provide any evidence that the Universe exists either. And yet...

As with most who deny the possibility of God on the grounds of lack of evidence, VA does not understand what evidence requires (boundaries) or what it entails (limitation). Infinity has neither.

Bounded rationality - it's a thing.

Which reminds me! http://www.hpmor.com
Chapter 2 is my favorite: Everything I Believe Is False

Thanks. I'm gonna take a look at it.

Bounded rationality - it's a thing.

Which, in its own way, is irrational.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawmanning again.

God?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

I am not going to waste time on this.

Yes. There's a lot of weasel words in that article too.

Here's a (short list):
* Omnipotent
* Omniscient
* Omnipresent
* Deity
* transcendence

None of that word salad tells me any of the PROPERTIES of God. There is nothing TESTABLE in there. Just empty words.

You know - so that I can establish whether this magical object which I discovered and which I suspect of being God is, in fact God. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

And testability is not the end of it! The Big Bang and Evolution have been extensively tested and I have no idea what it means to "believe" in either of those theories/phenomena!

So if I don't understand what it means to "believe" in scientific theories, then I sure as hell don't know what it means to "believe" in something untestable.

I am not a theist.

Note the Wiki article on God and above qualities attributed to a God are not mine but are claimed, described and defined by the various types of theists.
The empty words are not mine and if you believe God, whatever your definition of God are also empty words.
Again you are f_cking your own arse.

[TimeSeeker]

Note Wiki article on God and above qualities attributed to a God are not mine but defined by the various types of theists.
The empty words are not mine and if you believe God, whatever your definition of God are also empty words.
Again you are f_cking your own arse.

Suppose all of the above is true. I can reasonably assume that you are just mirroring the use of the word "God" e.g you've adopted the language even though you don't understand the meaning. Quite a reasonable thing to do - since all the definitions are indeed meaningless.

Similarly - I am mirroring your use of the phrase "believe in God". I have adopted the language, but I don't know what it means.

So lets start there. Explain what YOU mean by the phrase "believing in X". Be it believing in God. Or believing in Evolution.

Define belief.

Since you constantly use that phrase - I trust those aren't just empty/meaningless words?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are nutting your own nutty claim that God exists as real when you cannot provide evidence at all.

You can't provide any evidence that the Universe exists either. And yet...

As with most who deny the possibility of God on the grounds of lack of evidence, VA does not understand what evidence requires (boundaries) or what it entails (limitation). Infinity has neither.

If you want to believe in God or whatever for whatever reasons and keep it personal and private, nobody would give a damn. There was this nympho who believe in God for the super dick for her own private fantasies.

But if you want to discuss God in a public forum, then you must have the intellectual integrity and the rigor to justify your views of God.
This requirement of objectivity is more serious for those atheists who insist their God is real, delivered a message to them via a prophet that exhort them to kill non-believers because atheism is a threat to their religion.

Btw, I rejected the idea of God due to lack of objectivity and in addition I provided the reasons and evidence [psychological, etc.] why theists has this strong inclination toward a belief in a God which is illusory.

[TimeSeeker]

But if you want to discuss God in a public forum, then you must have the intellectual integrity and the rigor to justify your views of God.

Why must I justify my views to you or anybody? It took me 30 years to work my way to this position. It took rejection of faith, militant atheism, alienation of family and friends only to figure out theists were not wrong.

You think I can (or want to) justify my views to you in a 200 word post?

This requirement of objectivity is more serious

A "requirement"? Imposed by whom? Seems like an appeal to authority.

Do you have any evidence/justification for claimed requirement which you believe exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But if you want to discuss God in a public forum, then you must have the intellectual integrity and the rigor to justify your views of God.

Why must I justify my views to anybody? It took me 30 years to get to this position. You think I can justify them to you in a 200 word post?

It is your discretion to shut up.

[TimeSeeker]

But if you want to discuss God in a public forum, then you must have the intellectual integrity and the rigor to justify your views of God.

Why must I justify my views to anybody? It took me 30 years to get to this position. You think I can justify them to you in a 200 word post?

It is your discretion to shut up.

And it is also my discretion to tell you to fuck off

You can't silence me. Freedom of speech and all that shit.

And if you try to silence me, I will introduce you to my friend - Glock 26.

But I will just use my discretion to dispel your bigotry instead

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why must I justify my views to anybody? It took me 30 years to get to this position. You think I can justify them to you in a 200 word post?

It is your discretion to shut up.

And it is also my discretion to tell you to fuck off

You can't silence me. Freedom of speech and all that shit.

And if you try to silence me, I will introduce you to my friend - Glock 26.

It is your discretion to shut up or post whatever you like.
It is my discretion to response as I had been doing and the moderator's discretion to act as necessary.

Btw, I don't give a damn with your psychopathic threats.

[TimeSeeker]

Btw, I don't give a damn with your psychopathic threats.

You are too stupid to recognise that it's not a threat. It's a hypothetical.

IF you try to silence me.

IF

IF

IF

It is an accurate prediction of events. The start of the causal chain being YOU.

[TimeSeeker]

It is your discretion to shut up or post whatever you like.
It is my discretion to response as I had been doing and the moderator's discretion to act as necessary.

Naturally. And it's also my discretion to counter your bullshit.

Bigotry and intolerance kills more people than terrorism.

Because terrorism is a subset of bigotry.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, I don't give a damn with your psychopathic threats.

You are too stupid to recognise that it's not a threat. It's a hypothetical.

IF you try to silence me.

IF

IF

IF

I don't have the authority to silence you, thus I don't give a damn with it.
If or regardless, in principle that threat is more applicable to the moderator who can silence you.

[Atla]

It's standard on forums by the way that real-life threats result in an immediate permanent ban.

[TimeSeeker]

I don't have the authority to silence you, thus I don't give a damn with it.
If or regardless, in principle that threat is more applicable to the moderator who can silence you.

And a good thing you don't have the authority! Because you seem to think I should exercise my "discretion to shut up" more often.

I am sure you won't have any urges to act on that thought. Say if you were a moderator.

[TimeSeeker]

It's standard on forums by the way that real-life threats result in an immediate permanent ban.

It's not a threat. It's a hypothetical. If you can't tell the difference - you don't deserve a brain.

IF it rains THEN the ground will be wet.
IF you try to silence me (rob me of my human rights) THEN I will resort to violence

IF -> THEN
CAUSE -> EFFECT

IF YOU DON'T try to rob me of my human rights THEN I WON'T resort to violence.

See how it works?

You don' get to ban me without providing evidence admitting to your intent of robbing my rights and if that is your intention, then the use of violence against you and those who think like you is perfectly ethical in my books.

My violence is only IN RESPONSE to inhumanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't have the authority to silence you, thus I don't give a damn with it.
If or regardless, in principle that threat is more applicable to the moderator who can silence you.

And a good thing you don't have the authority! Because you seem to think I should exercise my "discretion to shut up" more often.

I am sure you won't have any urges to act on that thought. Say if you were a moderator.

If I were are moderator I would consider it, given that you had threatened to punch a lady in the face in this forum and now your none hesitation [conditional] to use this [pic below] if things don't go your way [not to me btw] but those in authority.