woot makes his own point moot

""I put forward a video that explains this by one of the worlds leading physicists,..what is meant by nothing..

..*and how we see things pop in and out of existence
all the time.""

this alone validates what religeonists
have been saying for 1000's of years

they also predicted the 'XY' chromosone
recall adam...male..thus 'Xy'...

god..cloned his future wife eve..[XX]
making for him his sister..[but the guy was too dumb to know it THEN]

god is NEITHER male nor female
not XX nor Xy...[also he is unseen..EXCEPT
that we may know 'him/her"..by his sign..[to wit the seen..]
like woof woof's moot point..

seeing,..""things pop in and out of existence
all the time.""

its well in the record..that genesis..PREDICTED much
that science has yet to refute..[and only seems to confirm]

to wit the let there be light moment..[BIG BANG]..
and behold god saw it was good

im noting that these Athiests..
dont got much answers

lol

THEY KNOW...society has been missled..by religeonists
but now seek the next form of belief[dissbelief]

and for this i have created
JUST for you david/paul and moot woot
a NEW WORD...[by devine inspiration]

recall the word...theogonia..[god beggetting]
my new word is atheo-gonia..[athiestic beggeting]

as opposed to theodicy
and theogeny

call it theodike
that theophainein
revealed to the theosophos
as the theogeny..for the athegonia

anyhow you crop of athiests...dont got much evi-dense
and all your revealing..is wasted effort..turning into nothing
and not even DARING to produce a transcript[ie putting it into writing]

faulse imagry
and faulse idols
to try to manifest a new age of rage

same as the old one
with a new head

[what does that remind me of]
three heads regrow?

Otokonoko

Thank you for your post. Like Paul1405, I have no problem with people believing in a god or gods for that matter - just the baggage of religion that distorts the ideal of a god and has resulted in the consequences we see around us.

I don't believe simply because there is no evidence - wouldn't take much, but would have to be something useful like world peace - not a burning bush - my magician cousin can do that.

Squeers your posts have reached a crescendo of hysteria. You are intelligent enough to know what this does to one's credibility.

Smiling Cactus, I accept your words with grace.

To woot, Paul1405, I'll be wearing a red carnation.

Ammonite,

"Squeers your posts have reached a crescendo of hysteria. You are intelligent enough to know what this does to one's credibiity."

Talking of credibity....I've been entertained by following the technique that you've perfected in prostrating yourself as the chastened victim while simultaneously baiting your opponent, who in this case was Squeers.
(It appears the first "demeaning" reference between the two of you was fired from you to him - 'lame" and "abysmal")

Now, to me, you usually make a hell of a lot of sense on this forum. I have a lot of time for the goodness of your heart. However, I think you were perfectly aware what Squeers was getting at, yet you chose to play games with him.

Do you believe that an atheist paradigm could make a positive contribution to the way humans interact with each other and the planet? What do you envisage coming into being in an atheist paradigm that would enhance humanity? (as opposed to just sweeping something else away)

If you are able to catch ABC's Big Ideas - Is There A God? - on IView, the debate between Peter Singer and John Lennox proved most interesting. Some excellent delivery from both in the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/09/06/3310342.htm

The question to be asked is religion inherently more dangerous or more good in creating a values framework for some people. Like Ammonite, I don't have a problem with religious beliefs only overt proselytising and undue influence on governments.

There is room in society for a variety of beliefs. Indeed Christianity manages to accommodate 1000s of different versions.

One day I might make it to an Atheist Conference but I still find the concept bewildering, despite acknowledging a benefit in ensuring that religious agendas don't dictate government policy at the expense of a more tolerant secular society. As long as the Atheists also remain tolerant.

The Atheist 'movement' might be seen as a byproduct or reaction to the already strong influence of some religious lobby groups. The positioning of Chaplains into public schools is one such example.

As long as Atheism is not distorted or become oppressive in dictating what others should and should not believe other than through education and a growing profile, in the same way that theists have always sought to influence, I cannot see any harm. People can make their own choices.

Poirot,
A good point. Atheism is merely a negative view and contributes nothing to enhance culture and society.

Because the diversity of the Universe operates as a unit there is only one God.

Poirot

I took umbrage at Squeers depiction of Dawkins & Co - and responded. I do believe being told I should've understood his cryptic clues from the onset (with the implication that I am somehow gauche if I couldn't) as being deserving of comment and chose to be similarly obtuse. My choice. You don't approve. Fine. That is what this forum is all about.

I don't see atheism as the broom to sweep away religion - philosophy fills the role of establishing values. Atheism is not anti-theism, but just a non-belief in a deity (or deities). This gets lost, and I despair that the word itself has become distorted.

I am pleased to hear from the Federal government that now schools can choose between a chaplain or qualified counsellor and funding will provided for either. That is fair and reasonable and is what I strive to be - albeit unsuccessfully at times or merely not succinct enough and, therefore, open to misinterpretation. Good intentions, if not good outcomes.

But now you have Philo interpreting your comment as atheism being all about a negative world view. Do you agree? With him?

PS

Pelican - thank you for link.