Irrev-Black wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:47 pmI'd also like to know how BarryK reconciles that villainous Old Testament, dick-obsessed, despot with New Testament Jesus and the nicey-nicey heavenly father who's content to sit back and say he's well pleased with how sonny-boy is doing.
Hi Rev
I don’t agree with your comment about the OT God. Did we read the same book? Or was your book about the life of Donald Trump?
Cheers Barry
It was not my comment.
I was quoting Richard Dawkins, as the text clearly showed.
Are you prepared to discuss matters seriously, or are you here to post snide comments and primary-school level nonsense rejoinders?
Greedy fuckers cannot self-regulate.
Prove me wrong.
It so often comes back to this monotonous refrain, even after people offer possibilities of how that could be the case. One just responds with 'i cant accept that explanation,' and the gap remains into which some godlet may continue to be shoved. It's completely disingenuous.
First they came for the 'illegal' immigrants...and i did not speak out because i was not an illegal immigrant.
Then they came for...
Good point. I’ll ask again , how did the world begin?
The universe may always have been in existence. Roger Penrose, who knows a bit about this stuff, had this idea.
Nobel Laureate mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has said that the present universe did not start with the Big Bang and that there was another universe before the present one.
Traces of the older universe can be discovered in present black holes and certain electromagnetic radiation spots in the sky, Penrose, said in his address at a virtual meet at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics here from Oxford on Monday.
"There was actually another universe existing before the present one and the Big Bang merely marked the end of that universe. Evidence of that previous universe can still be observed these days," he said.
In a similar way this universe will be succeeded by another after millions of years with the mark of the current universe left in black holes, Penrose, who is currently associated with Oxford University and is a contemporary of Stephen Hawking, said elucidating the theory of the "conformal cyclic cosmology" which talks of the infinite cycles surrounding the universe and Big Bang.
Barryk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 2:42 pm
My answer seems to be universally denied on this forum, surprise surprise….
Are you casting some kind of slur on our members? Explain yourself clearly.
Barryk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 2:42 pm
The burden of proof is not on me. You can’t just say prove it’s God, and not take responsibility for your own ignorance and lack of an explanation.
You started this thread, and your presence on this forum, with a claim.
The burden of proving that claim is yours.
Greedy fuckers cannot self-regulate.
Prove me wrong.
pipbarber wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 4:15 pm
'How can something come from nothing?'
It so often comes back to this monotonous refrain, even after people offer possibilities of how that could be the case. One just responds with 'i cant accept that explanation,' and the gap remains into which some godlet may continue to be shoved. It's completely disingenuous.
Dontcha know Pip, everything just has to come from something. Except the god. But everything else just has to come from something.....
Irrev-Black wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:18 amPerhaps somebody could ask somebody else some direct questions, and the other party could give some direct answers, based on verifiable fact.
I think that we may come to some understanding if this was to happen.
Hi Rev,
Good point. I’ll ask again , how did the world begin? My answer seems to be universally denied on this forum, surprise surprise….
The burden of proof is not on me. You can’t just say prove it’s God, and not take responsibility for your own ignorance and lack of an explanation.
Cheers Barry
Atheism isn't a claim. And has nothing to do with how the world began. Sounds to me like you are ignorant of what atheism is. It's simply lack of belief that gods exist. Nothing more, nothing less. Which makes this...
"and not take responsibility for your own ignorance and lack of an explanation." trolling.
Your claim that a god did it. You provide your verifiable independent evidence.........why are believers so dishonest?
BTW, the universe by definition is everything said to exist. If your god is outside this, then well done, you've just defined something that doesn't exist.
universe
noun
1.
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
pipbarber wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:25 pm
...
We are mostly agnostic atheists here and you'll not find many of us arguing that god does not exist.
...
For what it's worth, I'm a gnostic atheist! To me, a god ranks with the infantile concepts of a tooth fairy/easter bunny/Santa Claus/... .
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
pipbarber wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:25 pm
...
We are mostly agnostic atheists here and you'll not find many of us arguing that god does not exist.
...
For what it's worth, I'm a gnostic atheist! To me, a god ranks with the infantile concepts of a tooth fairy/easter bunny/Santa Claus/... .
I'll get into my certainty of a godless universe (for interventionist, xtian values of "god") over at my intro thread at some stage soon.
For now, cooking dinner, and some Other Duties for the forum have my attention.
Greedy fuckers cannot self-regulate.
Prove me wrong.
We've discussed @Barryk, and decided to give him some thinking time.
Mod Mode = ON.
BarryK, this forum has one rule: Don't be a dick.
Now, we haven't known you, or at least the persona you project online, for long, but you are starting to appear somewhat dickish.
There could be many reasons why you aren't answering questions, and most of them don't portray you in a good light.
If it's due to the most charitable of the possible reasons (that you don't actually understand anything you're defending enough to do it competently), then we'd be cruel to keep you here, throwing questions at you and highlighting that lack.
You need a break, and, frankly, so do we.
You've got a week off.
There's no obligation to come back.
If you do come back, try a fresh approach.
Take it from me, you'd make a pretty poor evangelist with your ability to alienate the audience. Try reading Philippians 2:3 if you're actually keen on evangelising.
(By the way, banned people who try to come back under other names are not tolerated.)
ENDS
Greedy fuckers cannot self-regulate.
Prove me wrong.
When a lone theist dares to tread in an atheist forum, they encounter a flood of questions, arguments and objections. It's a lot of work for them to respond to it all. Invariably, they don't have the stamina. So what we are left with is a few sputtering, incomplete, internet era versions of the Apostles' Creed, followed by a barrage of questions and challenges which go unanswered. For example Barry is apparently OK with me saying his Lord and Saviour is a fraud and a liar.
Normally we atheists don't even bother with this stuff. BarryK, what you have done is generate a whole bunch of atheistic logic and rhetoric which wouldn't have happened if you had just left us alone. I don't wander into a church and express my lack of belief. Why even bother doing the inverse here?
