Jamest is right!

[pErvinalia]

Therefore God.

[piscator]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety.

Well it depends on how one defines "evidence". So what evidence do you have for God (or the like)?

Given that the observation/experience of X, and X itself, cannot in principle be identical entities, then the requirement to limit metaphysical/ontological evidence of something to observational/experiential evidence is thus seen to be so far stupid as to be embarrassing.

My evidence for God will not be forthcoming in the presence of such delusion.

If someone decides to twat you one for spouting such bollocks, I'll just bet you stand there thinking, "Given that the observation/experience of this fist approaching my face, and a fist approaching my face itself, cannot in principle be identical entities, then the requirement to limit metaphysical/ontological evidence of something to observational/experiential evidence is thus seen to be so far stupid as to be embarrassing.

I shall not move my face out of the way in the presence of such delusion."
Good luck with that.

He already said he'd get out of the way of a falling piano, at least as fast as a genocidal materialist cannibal like you or me.

To the bolded: One must be the leaf to understand the leaf? I don't think. So why so much emphasis on the observer not being the observed, like that's some kind of shortcoming? A broad sweeping non sequitur unless jamest explains how it's necessary to be the wave rather than simply observe the wave.

[rainbow]

And aren't you an atheist, allegedly?

Nope. I'm a non-theistic Tolerist™

So it's just a coincidence that we both don't choose to believe in God? You got to that point via evidence, and we just stumbled there somehow?

I don't choose not to believe in God. I don''t choose to believe in God. I keep an open mind and watch carefully for, and carefully evaluate, any evidence pointing either way, and I refuse to draw faulty conclusions based on personal bias or inadequate credible information.

So, in other words, you are an atheist. Welcome to the team!

Drivel of course, since Atheists don't exist.

Therefore the team would be the Empty Set {}
Logically you cannot add a member to the empty set, because then it is no longer the empty set.

[pErvinalia]

Huh?

[hackenslash]

... Einstein's work only undermines Newton's because there are no "bodies having, as it were, a
complete, absolute and independent reality in themselves".

Do you really want me to fuck this idiotic shit over again? You've already demonstrated categorically that you understand neither Newton nor Einstein sufficiently to do anything other than make a twat of yourself with the invocation of either name.

[pErvinalia]

I want you to. I think the good folk here need to see the true hubris of Jamest. They really can't understand it without witnessing it first hand.

[hackenslash]

If you think that definite matter can exist as a 'field equation', or that 'field equations' can actually interact, then you're off your fucking trolley.

Care to define 'matter' for us, Jimmy?

That has to be a pork pie. Nobody can have their head buried that deeply into the sand.

Well, yours isn't buried, and you don't get anything of what Newton said, so there appears to be a flaw in your route from premises to conclusion. Perhaps if you unpacked it for us, showing exactly how you got from 'don'[t get what Newton was on about' to 'has head buried in sand'.

Why was he mad?

Seriously? Nobody can have their head buried that deeply in the sand. Unless, of course, there's a flaw in the reasoning that says that not knowing something can only result from having your head buried in the sand...

You should be aware that the knowledge that Newton was a complete fucking fruit loop is considered far more common than esoterica such as what he meant by a specific statement.

[hackenslash]

And aren't you an atheist, allegedly?

I've told you before, rEv, that's not how you spell 'moron'.

[hackenslash]

Given that the observation/experience of X, and X itself, cannot in principle be identical entities,

Woohoo! You finally fucking got it right!

Now, what are you going to do with this trivial bit of information that most of us grasped while you were still spreading turds on your face?

[hackenslash]

I disagree.

Stop press: moron has a different opinion.

If everything is interdependent and interacting it creates a much more complex system than if each thing is independent and not interacting.

An awful lot of extraneous verbiage in there, since complexity is simply behaviour arising from interacting entities. I sense it's being used to set up some idiocy.

We know that complexity favors the emergence of intelligence, so an infinitely complex system would appear to be infinitely intelligent.

Two things wrong with this: First, while it's true that complexity favours the emergence of intelligence, since intelligence is merely an emergent behaviour arising from interactions of entities, and can thus be thought of as complexity, it simply doesn't follow that the complexity/intelligence relationship is scalable in this fashion. Second, and setting aside the fact that you suddenly jumped from complexity to infinite complexity, infinite complexity would require infinite interacting entities. Where have those come from?

I'm sure what you said looks an awful lot like logic to a stupid cunt, but to anybody with more than two functioning neurons, it's clear that, for you, logic is just something that happens to other people.

Don't you have some trip-trapping to attend to?

[pErvinalia]

If my signature wasn't so full already, there'd be some additional quotes added to it after that.

[Svartalf]

Drivel of course, since Atheists don't exist.

Therefore the team would be the Empty Set {}
Logically you cannot add a member to the empty set, because then it is no longer the empty set.

Only in foxholes, never delete foxholes from THAT equation.

[Brian Peacock]

No, the cause of atheism is an unwillingness to logically and rationally examine all the available evidence.

Atheists refuse to accept that 'evidence' can be anything other than of the observed variety. That's precisely why they're all fucking idiots.

I'm an atheist because what theist call 'evidence' is not evidence for a god or gods, it's only evidence that they believe in a god or gods. The evidence for God is about as reliable as the evidence for Vishnu, or Odin, or that-one-with-a-bird-for-a-head-whatever-he's-called; Just some reports about how some people think the thing exists.

My third-cousin Rupret, who I've never met, or met anyone who's ever met him, and who lives on the other side of the world in a place nobody knows and without any contact details, but whom my grandfather talked of often, is the greatest classical violinist the world has ever known, or will ever know. He travels from country to country, crossing borders without notice, to give concerts that nobody has ever seen, but when he plays the music is so powerfully moving that the birds fly down from the trees, the insects still their buzzing wings, all the beasts of the field, of the lowlands and of the highlands, scurry to sit at his feet, the tides pauses its relentless turning so that the waves can listen, and even the moon and stars take a break from their journey across the heavens, all to bask and wallow in the warm and timeless peaceful glow of his beautiful adagios.

If this tale counts as evidence for you, and it should because I happen to know it's all completely true, then you must not only accept it in your heart but you must also join me in sharing these marvellous wonders about the existence of third-cousin Rupret with all peoples of the world - wearing a special hat while you're at it of course. For this is what he wants. If you don't accept this as evidence for the existence of third-cousin Rupret then, apparently, you've succumbed to an incipient logical fallacy and are a fucking idiot.

Go figure.

[hackenslash]

[Svartalf]

I'd love ot listen to Rupert... before I die.