Evil Inherent in All and Active in a %

[TimeSeeker]

If I were are moderator I would consider it, given that you had threatened to punch a lady in this forum

Context. Go dig up the post and you will find another hypothetical.

All it speaks is to the fact that you are a sheep. Violence BAAAAAAAAAA D!

So I shall say it again: good thing you aren't a moderator. Because you seem too irresponsible to be in any position of power.

and now your none hesitation [condition] to use this if things don't your way [not to me btw] but those in authority.

Correct. I will not hesitate to use violence IF you or anyone were to violate my HUMAN RIGHTS. What would you do in a similar position? Loudly object and complain? To whom? Those in authority? What if they are the ones violating your HUMAN RIGHTS?

There are no authorities. Only those we invent and CHOOSE to bow to. We invent such authorities for our own safety. And if I ever find myself in a position where you are robbing me of my HUMAN RIGHTS then authority has clearly failed to serve its intended purpose. That is where I am happy to take matters into my own hands. And no - this is NOT anarchy.

I bow to no authority when it comes to defending HUMAN RIGHTS. Pacifists don't get to enjoy freedoms.

http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org

[attofishpi]

On the whole - Life is evil, especially for lower life forms to human. God is all reality - panentheism is the glove that fits, from experience. Ergo, 'God' is lacking in benevolence for those contained within its 'system'.
So the dichotomy within ITS Earth common protocol English for communication is layered with said dichotomy - anomalies rendering the consensus that it is a natural evolved language as rather a joke on the wholistic approach, that summons it all up from within the sentient human perspective, our minds that are at the behest of this overarching intelligence. Since the 3rd party intelligence that formulated this language is at the most primary sub atomic matter, to the level of all events at their base level of the synapses within our mind, most presume natural thoughts, are in fact there own, but this intelligence has the ability to control our synapses to the point that renders us, biological robots.

[TimeSeeker]

I am not a theist.

By my definition - you are. By my definition - everybody is a theist! Because everybody is human. And humans (whether consciously or subconsciously) USE logic and; all logic requires axioms and principles.

Any person who subconsciously bows to any authority is a theist. Any human who has not yet conquered all the made up authorities in their own reasoning is a theist. Be it the 'authority' of logic; or the 'authority' of some axiomatic presuppositions, or the 'authority' of the 'laws' of logic; or the 'authority' of science.

Because all authorities are Gods and all Gods are authorities you are a theist. And you don't even know the names of the Gods you worship!

I am a theist too. I just know what my religion is. Shannon Information, Probability theory and Bayesian inference.

These tools - I accept and use on faith

[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.

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.

Your descent into irrationality has, for the moment, becomes too much to bear.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not a theist.

By my definition - you are. By my definition - everybody is a theist! Because everybody is human. And humans (whether consciously or subconsciously) USE logic and; all logic requires axioms and principles.

Any person who subconsciously bows to any authority is a theist. Any human who has not yet conquered all the made up authorities in their own reasoning is a theist. Be it the 'authority' of logic; or the 'authority' of some axiomatic presuppositions, or the 'authority' of the 'laws' of logic; or the 'authority' of science.

Because all authorities are Gods and all Gods are authorities you are a theist. And you don't even know the names of the Gods you worship!

I am a theist too. I just know what my religion is. Shannon Information, Probability theory and Bayesian inference.

These tools - I accept and use on faith

By my definition you are 'X' which can anything up to my personal discretion.
Do you understand what are personal subjective opinions?
This is gravitating into intellectual anarchy and nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your dissent into irrationality has, for the moment, becomes too much to bear.

I have provided reasonable evidences and arguments which is a basic requirement of any forum.
You? merely throwing useless one-liners which intellectual bastards who are cornered and run out of arguments would do.

[TimeSeeker]

By my definition you are 'X' which can anything up to my personal discretion.

No, moron.

The difference is that my definition is TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE and therefore meets the criteria for that which scientists call OBJECTIVE.

You can agree or disagree with my definition, or you can offer a better one.

Do you understand what are personal subjective opinions?

Yes, I do. Do you?

How do you TEST/FALSIFY whether somebody believes in God. You ask them?
But isn't what people SAY "just their personal subjective opinion" ?
Isn't how people define and conceptualise the meaning of "God" and "belief" just their personal, subjective opinion?

So in the same breath that you discard my CONCEPTION of theism as opinion, you admit my CONCEPTION of God-belief as a reliable EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for objective God-belief? How the fuck does that work?!?!?

It doesn't work. That is how confirmation bias works, not empiricism!

This is gravitating into intellectual anarchy and nonsense.

It is gravitating towards empiricism! To which you pay only lip-service where as I apply it in practice!

Intellectual nonsense is what you are busy doing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By my definition you are 'X' which can anything up to my personal discretion.

No, moron.

The difference is that my definition is TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE and therefore meets the criteria for that which scientists call OBJECTIVE.

You can agree or disagree with my definition, or you can offer a better one.

The above is a stupid view.

Your point;

By my definition - you are. By my definition - everybody is a theist! Because everybody is human. And humans (whether consciously or subconsciously) USE logic and; all logic requires axioms and principles.

Show me one reference from anyone who has the same definition as yours.

Note the definition therein as below are accepted by billions, else there would be common disputes to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Except YOU show me who else* dispute the above definitions.
* if there are [very rare?] they are stupid like you on this matter.

[TimeSeeker]

By my definition you are 'X' which can anything up to my personal discretion.

No, moron.

The difference is that my definition is TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE and therefore meets the criteria for that which scientists call OBJECTIVE.

You can agree or disagree with my definition, or you can offer a better one.

The above is a stupid view.

Your point;

By my definition - you are. By my definition - everybody is a theist! Because everybody is human. And humans (whether consciously or subconsciously) USE logic and; all logic requires axioms and principles.

Show me one reference from anyone who has same definition as yours.

Note the definition therein the below are accepted by billions, else there would be common disputes to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
Except YOU show me who else* dispute the above definitions.
* if there is anyone they are stupid like you on this matter.

Fuck. You are stupid.

How do you test that the CONCEPTION of God each person holds, and the manifestation of "God-belief" matches the definition and THEREFORE your expectation?

What does it mean to "Believe in God" ?

The definition doesn't matter. What matters is whether the definition can be TESTED.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, moron.

The difference is that my definition is TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE and therefore meets the criteria for that which scientists call OBJECTIVE.

You can agree or disagree with my definition, or you can offer a better one.

The above is a stupid view.

Your point;

By my definition - you are. By my definition - everybody is a theist! Because everybody is human. And humans (whether consciously or subconsciously) USE logic and; all logic requires axioms and principles.

Show me one reference from anyone who has same definition as yours.

Note the definition therein the below are accepted by billions, else there would be common disputes to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
Except YOU show me who else* dispute the above definitions.
* if there is anyone they are stupid like you on this matter.

Fuck. You are stupid.

Only 4 words??
Any worthy arguments to my point?

[TimeSeeker]

The above is a stupid view.

Your point;


Show me one reference from anyone who has same definition as yours.

Note the definition therein the below are accepted by billions, else there would be common disputes to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
Except YOU show me who else* dispute the above definitions.
* if there is anyone they are stupid like you on this matter.

Fuck. You are stupid.

Only 4 words??
Any worthy arguments to my point?

You aren't making any points. Only errors.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fuck. You are stupid.

Only 4 words??
Any worthy arguments to my point?

You aren't making any points. Only errors.

Then critique and explain the errors.

[TimeSeeker]

Only 4 words??
Any worthy arguments to my point?

You aren't making any points. Only errors.

Then critique and explain the errors.

I did. scroll up. You don't understand how empiricism works.

And explaining it words is not doing you any favours. Empiricism is something you learn by doing, not talking.

[TimeSeeker]

Watch this video: https://youtu.be/vKA4w2O61Xo

It demonstrates perfectly the error non-scientists keep making. The goal in science is not to get a "yes" or a "no". The goal is to get the result you PREDICTED, before you run the experiment! The purpose of the experiment is to merely confirm or falsify whether your prediction was accurate.

The error the players keep making is that they are only going for the "yes" answers (confirmation bias), and not putting any effort to get a "no" answer (falsification).

To relate this back in to "God belief". Asking me a yes/no question tells you NOTHING about my state of mind!

What is an interesting result is if you EXPECTED me to answer "yes", but I answered "no" or vice versa.
That means your prediction was wrong! Now you have actually learned something.

Asking somebody "Do you believe in God?" and them responding "Yes" is a completely useless interaction IF your mutual conceptions of "God" and "belief" are not identical!

The question they've answered "Yes" to is NOT the question you've asked!