Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[Iwannaplato]

If you have read extensively you will note there are so many instances of reported coincidences which are more astounding than yours.

You are taking da piss. This is one example of thousands of ongoing months for 23yrs of synchronicity perpetuated by the 3rd party intelligence. Stop wasting my time.

Don't be that arrogant.
It is your discretion so it is mine to posts.

In your case, you should at least eliminate this possibility objectively;
Temporal Epilepsy: God as a Psychological Derivative
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35084

Well then given VA's hatred of sex he should talk to a psychiatrist about his possibly still being radically affected by his particular religious background.

[seeds]

Am I to understand that you consider someone who dares to suggest that the truth of reality might be much more wonderful and purposeful than the old religions have led us to believe, has a "condition"?

Interesting.

That certainly is one possibility. Religious delusions -- psycho and/or somatic -- are not exactly rare phenomena down through the ages.

And, over and over and over again...

I'm less interested in what people claim to believe about any spiritual paradigm [old or new] and more interested in what they can demonstrate to me is true.

You can start by how, empirically, materially, phenomenologically, etc., you demonstrate it to yourself.

I do not demonstrate it to myself. It was demonstrated to me in a profound epiphany I experienced back in the summer of 1970.

I have merely spent the last 52 years trying to put into words and images what that experience revealed to me.
_______

[seeds]

I see, so you've gone into how to prevent children from dying from incurable diseases and accidents so that parents will never have to suffer?

That's amazing!

Can you provide a little more detail as to how to prevent such things?

Again you show your lack of intelligence and knowledge.
For example that image of the starving child could be the famine of Ethiopia sometime ago.
From then, the world and the country has taken steps of prevent those sort of sufferings.

The geographical location or cause of the child's immediate dilemma is completely irrelevant to the point being made about your nihilistic philosophy offering absolutely no "hope" to humans that there may be more to our existence than meets the eye.

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to in assessing your obvious attempt to sidetrack the narrative is that you are a dishonest person who will resort to any devious means you can think of in order to avoid answering problematic questions in regard to your materialistic philosophy.

I've also noticed, if not overt dishonesty, then pure self-delusion in your silly attempt to falsely define yourself in a way that you think the rest of us are too dumb to notice, as is witnessed in the following episode of your illogical thinking...

...the term 'atheist' had been and is used pejoratively that I don't want to use the term but rather prefer to be not-a-theist.

What you "want," or what you "prefer" is irrelevant to what is actually true.

The simplest and most widely accepted dictionary definition of the word "atheist" is as follows:

atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God...

To which I suggest that any person who makes it their life's mission to convince other persons that "God is an impossibility to be real," is the epitome of what it means to be an atheist.

Therefore, be it a pejorative or not, you are most definitely an atheist.

So, own it, for crying out loud.

Now, of course, you are certainly free to believe anything you wish.

However (and again), the fact that you do not "prefer" the title of "atheist" is completely irrelevant to what is actually true, as was your sidetracking comment about the world getting better at reducing the causes of suffering is completely irrelevant to the point I was making about the child.

Again, Veritas, you are proving yourself to be a very dishonest (devious) person.
_______

[promethean75]

"a profound epiphany I experienced back in the summer of 1970."

I'm sorry, but we cannot accept anything that happened to anyone in the summer of 1970 as a legitimate instance of enlightenment, religious, mystical and/or genuine paranormal and/or supernatural experience, deep philosophical insight of the kind your friends will never understand, or attaining profound knowledge/wisdom via an epiphany. Neither would anyone shout 'eureka' in the summer of 1970.

[promethean75]

"Like? When were you thinking of?"

Wait a min. Are you axin me because you are woefully ignorant of the numerous extinction events that have occured on the erf?

That can't be it. Shirley you're aware that ninety some percent of all existing aminals have gone extinct. Must be tryna get a set up for an argument where you say it's irrelevant or aminals don't feel pain or some other such something where 'god' gets let off the hook again.

Well it ain't happenin', pal. I'm tellin you it was logically possible to design the universe differently and 'god' dit'int have to make it the way it is. This is not the best of all possible wurlds, bruh. It can't be. I refuse to believe it.

[promethean75]

"It's not dark or demented, it's actually the opposite, it's being totally awake to the truth, minus my super essential superficial denial filter. It's having the courage to face natures true face."

You gotdamn right, sista.

And this is why Christianity offends me insofar as the worse our species has to offer is inevitably accounted for by the necessary will and design of that 'god', and accepted because of that.

I feel like people try less hard to help those in poverty and famine when they believe in a 'god'. I know, you'd think it'd be the other way around. And I'm counting religious charities too. The overall mindfulness about a preventable tragedy like that is weakened, I think, in powerless people who don't know how to help or what to do, anyway. At the end of the day 'it's in god's hands', as it were.

Now if anything's demented, that's demented.

All one says when that ugly ol' vulture eats that poor little nigglet fellow who mighta ended up being a computer programmer had things gone differently, is 'god works in mysterious ways'?

[Iwannaplato]

I feel like people try less hard to help those in poverty and famine when they believe in a 'god'.

You feel like it? What's that feel like?

All one says when that ugly ol' vulture eats that poor little nigglet fellow who mighta ended up being a computer programmer had things gone differently, is 'god works in mysterious ways'?

Who said that about the child in that photo?
The child lived by the way.

I don't like Christianity, but Christians give more to charities than non-believers, according to the BBC and the Washington Times. Gallup finds them neck and neck, though found Christians volunteer more time working at charities.

Anyway the Christians have their faith and you have yours. Maybe I'll buy both groups some eggs.

Nigglet fellow??!

Are you channeling?

[iambiguous]

Am I to understand that you consider someone who dares to suggest that the truth of reality might be much more wonderful and purposeful than the old religions have led us to believe, has a "condition"?

Interesting.

That certainly is one possibility. Religious delusions -- psycho and/or somatic -- are not exactly rare phenomena down through the ages.

And, over and over and over again...

I'm less interested in what people claim to believe about any spiritual paradigm [old or new] and more interested in what they can demonstrate to me is true.

You can start by how, empirically, materially, phenomenologically, etc., you demonstrate it to yourself.

I do not demonstrate it to myself. It was demonstrated to me in a profound epiphany I experienced back in the summer of 1970.

I have merely spent the last 52 years trying to put into words and images what that experience revealed to me.

Again, personal experiences and God are something I cannot really comment on. They embody dasein down to the bone. Only to the extent those who have them might suggest a way I might experience them myself, will I [perhaps] come to understand them.

That is, assuming that the experience is not attributable to a clinical, somatic "condition". Lots of mentally ill people with actual brain afflictions have [down through the years] claimed all sorts of things about themselves and one or another God.

So, what was "it" and who or what demonstrated "it" to you?

And how might your experience convince those like me that, when it comes to morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, there really is a God, the God. And, aside from personal experiences, there is actual evidence able to demonstrate that it is in fact your God and not one of the other ones.

And then this part:

"an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages."

[Iwannaplato]

Again, personal experiences and God are something I cannot really comment on. They embody dasein down to the bone. Only to the extent those who have them might suggest a way I might experience them myself,

I'm not a Christian but really you haven't heard and no Christian has ever told you about attending services, praying, praying with others, attending things like mass and doing these things for a long time might give you some religious experiences? Most of the mystics spent A LOT of time on religious practices and this seems connected to more religious experiences. I mean, if your interested. I truly doubt most Christians would suggest that reading arguments in a philosophy forum will lead to experiencing grace or God's presense or Jesus in your heart and so on.

And let's be doubly clear. I have no interest in you doing this or not. I just find it odd you seem unaware or present yourself as being unaware of the kinds of suggestions Christians make to someone who wants these kinds of experiences. And that it might take significant time.

I know there are some, a tiny minority who think proofs of God's existence is the way to go. But give a church a call and I think you will get a suggestion to participate in practices and give it time and welcome.

[seeds]

All one says when that ugly ol' vulture eats that poor little nigglet fellow who mighta ended up being a computer programmer had things gone differently, is 'god works in mysterious ways'?

From a site called "The Racial Slur Database":

Nigglet
Blacks
Black children. Adapted from mixing Ni_ger with the word piglet (a baby pig)

So, not only does our resident homeboy...



...think it's funny and cool to use this image...



...as the source of a joke, but now he decides to toss a racial slur at the child.

Why are you spending so much time here when "Notorious Thug T" needs you at his rallies?
_______

[Iwannaplato]

From a site called "The Racial Slur Database":

Nigglet
Blacks
Black children. Adapted from mixing Ni_ger with the word piglet (a baby pig)

So, not only does our resident homeboy...

I think the most charitable read is he thinks that Christians will think of the child in the photo as a nigglet. IOW he didn't mean it himself. They bad, they'd use this term or think that way. But then, an american majority identifies as Christian and they are unlikely to think nigglet, let alone black african Christians.

[Age]

Am I to understand that you consider someone who dares to suggest that the truth of reality might be much more wonderful and purposeful than the old religions have led us to believe, has a "condition"?

Interesting.

That certainly is one possibility. Religious delusions -- psycho and/or somatic -- are not exactly rare phenomena down through the ages.

And, over and over and over again...

I'm less interested in what people claim to believe about any spiritual paradigm [old or new] and more interested in what they can demonstrate to me is true.

You can start by how, empirically, materially, phenomenologically, etc., you demonstrate it to yourself.

I do not demonstrate it to myself. It was demonstrated to me in a profound epiphany I experienced back in the summer of 1970.

I have merely spent the last 52 years trying to put into words and images what that experience revealed to me.
_______

You could start by just explaining WHAT HAPPENED and WHAT you SAW/EXPERIENCED.

That way what you have spent 'trying to' do for the last 52 years can FINALLY BE DONE, or REVEALED.

Also "iambiguous", what is 'it', EXACTLY, that you are, supposedly, 'interested' in having demonstrated to you is true?

I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY demonstrate 'it' to you, that is; IF 'it' is true, but whether you are ACTUALLY ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE that demonstration is another matter.

[Age]

I see, so you've gone into how to prevent children from dying from incurable diseases and accidents so that parents will never have to suffer?

That's amazing!

Can you provide a little more detail as to how to prevent such things?

Again you show your lack of intelligence and knowledge.
For example that image of the starving child could be the famine of Ethiopia sometime ago.
From then, the world and the country has taken steps of prevent those sort of sufferings.

The geographical location or cause of the child's immediate dilemma is completely irrelevant to the point being made about your nihilistic philosophy offering absolutely no "hope" to humans that there may be more to our existence than meets the eye.

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to in assessing your obvious attempt to sidetrack the narrative is that you are a dishonest person who will resort to any devious means you can think of in order to avoid answering problematic questions in regard to your materialistic philosophy.

I've also noticed, if not overt dishonesty, then pure self-delusion in your silly attempt to falsely define yourself in a way that you think the rest of us are too dumb to notice, as is witnessed in the following episode of your illogical thinking...

...the term 'atheist' had been and is used pejoratively that I don't want to use the term but rather prefer to be not-a-theist.

What you "want," or what you "prefer" is irrelevant to what is actually true.

The simplest and most widely accepted dictionary definition of the word "atheist" is as follows:

atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God...

To which I suggest that any person who makes it their life's mission to convince other persons that "God is an impossibility to be real," is the epitome of what it means to be an atheist.

It could also be argued that an "atheist" is just another 'religious person' but whose BELIEF is in NO God, instead of IN God.

Therefore, be it a pejorative or not, you are most definitely an atheist.

"veritas aequitas" only SEES the word "atheist" as a pejorative term because that one SEES and USES the word "theist" pejoratively.

"veritas aequitas" is ALSO MORE 'religious' in its BELIEF that God does NOT exist than some "religious" ones are in their BELIEF that God does exist.

So, own it, for crying out loud.

Now, of course, you are certainly free to believe anything you wish.

However (and again), the fact that you do not "prefer" the title of "atheist" is completely irrelevant to what is actually true, as was your sidetracking comment about the world getting better at reducing the causes of suffering is completely irrelevant to the point I was making about the child.

Again, Veritas, you are proving yourself to be a very dishonest (devious) person.
_______

[Age]

"a profound epiphany I experienced back in the summer of 1970."

I'm sorry, but we cannot accept anything that happened to anyone in the summer of 1970 as a legitimate instance of enlightenment, religious, mystical and/or genuine paranormal and/or supernatural experience, deep philosophical insight of the kind your friends will never understand, or attaining profound knowledge/wisdom via an epiphany. Neither would anyone shout 'eureka' in the summer of 1970.

WHY would you expect ANY one to expect you to accept ANY thing when you have NOT even HEARD 'it' YET?

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of how BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS can STOP and/or PREVENT people from LEARNING, and UNDERSTANDING.

This one will SAY, CLEARLY, that it can NOT accept absolutely ANY thing that happened to absolutely ANY one, at some particular moment, as being LEGITIMATE without:
1. Even LISTENING to what ACTUALLY happened.
2. Even KNOWING what ACTUALLY but PRE-DECIDING that 'that' (whatever 'it' is) is NOT LEGITIMATE.

The ABSURDITY, NONSENSICALNESS, RIDICULESSNESS, and STUPIDITY of this SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, VERY LOUDLY and CLEARLY I will add.

[Age]

"Like? When were you thinking of?"

Wait a min. Are you axin me because you are woefully ignorant of the numerous extinction events that have occured on the erf?

That can't be it. Shirley you're aware that ninety some percent of all existing aminals have gone extinct. Must be tryna get a set up for an argument where you say it's irrelevant or aminals don't feel pain or some other such something where 'god' gets let off the hook again.

Well it ain't happenin', pal. I'm tellin you it was logically possible to design the universe differently and 'god' dit'int have to make it the way it is. This is not the best of all possible wurlds, bruh. It can't be. I refuse to believe it.

And when one REFUSES to BELIEVE some thing, or in other words, CHOOSES to BELIEVE (in) the VERY OPPOSITE, then they have just become one of the very "religious", themselves, as they profess "others" ARE.

There is NO difference here between the two. BOTH are as SHUT and as CLOSED an individual as the "other" IS. In other words, BOTH are just as STUPID as the "other" IS.