Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature.

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

Where in that do I 'deny even the God of nature to exist'?


Define un-natural

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User




Why are we here? How did the universe begin? According to the Boshongo people of central Africa, before us there was only darkness, water and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the Sun. The Sun evaporated some of the water, leaving land. Still in discomfort, Bumba vomited up the Moon, the stars and then the leopard, the crocodile, the turtle and, finally, humans.

This creation myth, like many others, wrestles with the kinds of questions that we all still ask today. Fortunately, as will become clear, we now have a tool to provide the answers: science. When it comes to these mysteries of existence, the first scientific evidence was discovered in the 1920s, when Edwin Hubble began to make observations with a telescope on Mount Wilson in California. To his surprise, Hubble found that nearly all the galaxies were moving away from us. Moreover, the more distant the galaxies, the faster they were moving away. The expansion of the universe was one of the most important discoveries of all time. This finding transformed the debate about whether the universe had a beginning.

If galaxies are moving apart at the present time, they must therefore have been closer together in the past. If their speed had been constant, then they would all have been on top of one another billions of years ago. Was this how the universe began? At that time many scientists were unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics had broken down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience one can call god, to determine how the universe began. They therefore advanced theories in which the universe was expanding at the present time but didn’t have a beginning.
Take our expert-led online cosmology course revealing the biggest mysteries in the universe

Perhaps the best known was proposed in 1948. It was called the steady state theory, and it suggested that the universe had existed for ever and would have looked the same at all times. This last property had the great virtue of being a prediction that could be tested, a critical ingredient of the scientific method. And it was found lacking.

Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning came in October 1965, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space. The only reasonable interpretation is that this “cosmic microwave background” is radiation left over from an early hot and dense state. As the universe expanded, the radiation cooled until it became just the remnant we see today. Theory soon backed up this idea.

With Roger Penrose of Oxford University, I showed that if Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is correct, then there would be a singularity, a point of infinite density and space-time curvature, where time has a beginning. The universe started off in the Big Bang and expanded quickly. This is called “inflation” and it was extremely rapid: the universe doubled in size many times in a tiny fraction of a second. Inflation made the universe very large, very smooth and very flat. However, it was not completely smooth: there were tiny variations from place to place. These variations eventually gave rise to galaxies, stars and solar systems. We owe our existence to these variations. If the early universe had been completely smooth, there would be no stars and so life could not have developed. We are the product of primordial quantum fluctuations. As will become clear, many huge mysteries remain. Still, we are steadily edging closer to answering the age-old questions: Where did we come from? And are we the only beings in the universe who can ask these questions?

This story by Stephen Hawking was originally published as the introduction of the New Scientist book The Origin of (Almost) Everything.
https://www.newscientist.com/question/how-did-the-universe-begin/


@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

Asked and answered
This is what , the 20th time you asked the same question ? There’s nothing new to add to our answers. Apparently you don’t understand the word “ultimate ”
It means “final” which is why our answer never changes. You can keep repeating the question, but it’s cut and paste from here onwards, and that is the ultimate answer you get .

@yrger You are unable to comprehend that the Big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but rather the beginning of the expansion of the universe.

Ask yourself... what was going 'bang'?

As there is no known 'beginning' to the universe, there is no compelling necessity to postulate gods.

You accept that as a reasoned conclusion, because you have not argued against it.

therefore... atheist

You are unable to respond in any reasoned or germane manner to my statements that:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

therefore... atheist.

Apparently anything and everything can be a god, so it follows that gods are indistinguishable from everything else, and their existence cannot be discerned, so there is no reason to even consider such a postulation

therefore... atheist.

I congratulate you on the efficient way you have used your claims of theism to destroy theism and thereby advance your atheism

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT
LOOKS LIKE YOU DEPLETED YOUR SUPPLIES OF LOGIC AND REASON.
You have to keep recycling.

@DocSavage

Hi Doc, you can craft words like "God is a catalyst."

But you always neglect to go outside the words inside your mind, to search for evidence in the objective world independent of your mind, evidence for the concrete reality of the Catalyst-God.

Hi everyone with reason and intelligence, atheists are full of ideas inside their mind, but never doing anything like going forth into the objective world of reality to search for concrete evidence to the for example existence of the Catalyst-God.

They harbor ideas about fallacies, but they never take the challenge to present examples of fallacies in the real life of humans outside and independent of words inside their mind, for example, the socalled fallacy of circular thinking.

Okay, atheists, give a concrete example of circular acting representing your fallacy of circular thinking - in the real world of people and actions.




@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW








DocSavage · M
@yrger/chunkhead

50 words ? How about just two : BLOW ME
That’s Check Mate again. I answered your “ultimate” question.
Already gave the details. You can keep pretending, but you’re not fooling anyone. I win - you lose.

Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread


Hello fellow atheist... yrger the atheist 👍

You are unable to comprehend that the Big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but rather the beginning of the expansion of the universe.

Ask yourself... what was going 'bang'?

As there is no known 'beginning' to the universe, there is no compelling necessity to postulate gods.

You accept that as a reasoned conclusion, because you have not argued against it.

therefore... atheist

You are unable to respond in any reasoned or germane manner to my statements that:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

therefore... atheist

Apparently anything and everything can be a god, so it follows that gods are indistinguishable from everything else, and their existence cannot be discerned, so there is no reason to even consider such a postulation

therefore... atheist

I congratulate you on the efficient way you have used your claims of theism to destroy theism and thereby advance your atheism

@newjaninev2

Okay, you have the intellectual prowess and courage to exchange ideas with me.


From Yrger to Newjaninev2: Tell me where do we humans ultimately come from?
From Newjaninev2 to Yrger: What exactly do you mean by 'ultimately'?


@newjaninev2

I will give you an example anecdote for what is the meaning of ultimately:

There, that is the meaning of ultimately.

You Newjaninev2 keeps on evading the issue where do you ultimately come from until you finally reach a dead end which is the reality of God's existence, the source of all non-indepenent beings.

Who and what is God?
"God is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient."




==============

newjaninev2 · 51-55, F
@yrger

Because you did not ask me.

Now, enough of your weasel terms... what exactly do you mean by 'ultimately'?

@LeopoldBloom

Hi Leop, you don't seem to link to the question what is the ultimate cause of man's existence.

Tell me how you understand these words: "what is the ultimate cause of man's existence."

Imagine that you are into an essay type university level examination of language comprehension, and the topic you are to write on in 50 words or less, is as follows:

"On the ultimate cause of man's existence."



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW









LeopoldBloom · M
@yrger How humans are existing: I assume you meant what the origin of life is. Life developed from abiotic precursors that gained in complexity through natural selection, as the structures that were able to self-replicate did so and perpetuated themselves.

There is no reason why humans exist. Or we exist for whatever reason works best for you. All value judgments originate with us.

@SW-User

You say, this is my argument:
“We can’t explain how the universe began, therefore it must be God.”

It is correct, because God is the "permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."

Scientists tell us that the universe has a beginning, so we can implicate therefrom that God exists, see above.






@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@SW-User

You say: "Why do you believe that God created everything that man encounters in nature. If it's by reasoning, then show your reasoning."

Here is my reasoning:
1. Nature is the material-physical universe of which man is a part of.
2. Scientists tell us the material-physical universe has a beginning.
3. Everything with a beginning implicates a creator God to bring it to its beginning.
4. Therefore, God exists as the creator of the universe i.e. nature.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User







Mithraia · 31-35, M
Why do you believe that God created everything that man encounters in nature. If it's by reasoning, then show your reasoning.

@DocSavage

You say: "If god can exist without a creator."
I gladly concur with you that God does not need a creator because God and creator are identical.

But the material-physical universe is composed of ultimately particles, and particles need a creator master-mind to bring them into existence as a composite being, and keep them in existence, that is why scientists state the universe has a beginning, i.e. in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis






DocSavage · M
If god can exist without a creator, the universe can exist without a god.
Prove us wrong or shut up.

And I could miss your ideas also, for your ideas could be most profitable to me, as I care to know what other people think about things, in particular about God, for God is the ultimate explanation for everything that is not God.

And although you atheists don't care to know God exists, and I being theist am certain from reason and intelligence that God exists - still for being fellow humans, we can and should be civilized and thus even be good friends - so dear DocSavage, no need to be throwing your tihs at me - that is not being friendly.

From my part I just remind you that we humans are not like cattle or donkeys or frogs (not of course insulting these otherwise noble creatures of God) - for God does not endow them with reason and intelligence.

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

@DocSavage

God of nature is the God man knows to exist in nature and by his (man's) natural reason and intelligence.

God of supernature is the God man knows to exist by reading the Bible (or the Koran in the case of Muslims).

What's their difference?

With the God of nature, man knows God to exist because He (God) created the material/physical universe in the Big Bang.

With the God of supernature, man reads in the Bible that God works miracles like making the sun (earth) to stop moving.

I define the God of nature thus:
"The God (of nature) is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."

What about you, Doc?

Which God do you deny to exist and how and why?

@SW-User

You ask, "So...who created God?"

God doesn't have to create God, because things do not require multiplying - unless they are dependent on another also dependent being to come into dependent existence.

God is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature.

Atheists think according to science, but science is concerned only with composite beings, while theists think on the transcendental level, by which theists see more things, including God, and understand how God exists and why.




@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@DocSavage

You say "God is a catalyst ."

In which case, please define what is utlimately a catalyst-God: in not more than 50 words.





@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW






DocSavage · M
@yrger/chunkhead
That is exactly what I’m saying. You seem to be having a problem with the idea that something can self exist. As I have repeatedly said. God is a catalyst .if the universe was a self existing singularity, something caused it to expand. There no need for that something to be permanent. Nor for it to be living and self aware. You claim your nature god is different from the traditional supernatural gods, of myth and legends ( real or not ) but can you really think outside the box ? Or are you just too afraid to imagine we’re on our own ? That there’s no one at the driving wheel ?
I’m not. I enjoy it.

@deadgerbil

Thanks for reading my posts, I am the Yrger the theist, and I authored the thread here, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

You are new here, welcome to my writings here in the current thread.

You ask:
Are the two comments exactly the same?

That's what you noticed - good girl!

Perhaps you should have asked me instead, why I repeated the comment.

Anyway, read the comment again, and tell me whether you agree with me or not, scil.








@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

I am Yrger the theist and here is my definition of the God of nature:
"The God (of nature) is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."


@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

Here is my definition of the God of nature:
"The God (of nature) is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."

I strongly disagree. To believe in a super-intelligence requires switching off our own intelligence. it's a 'don't think, just believe' kind of proposition. Sure, there are many arguments of the illogical and spurious sort. They don't impress me much.

@newjaninev2

God dispensed attributes to creatures He creates: to us He gives us reason and intelligence, to cattle, donkeys, and frogs He does not give reason and intelligence, but other attributes for His purposes - God's purposes.

And why does God give to us reason and intelligence?
From my rational intelligent thinking, it is ultimately because He does care that we should know Him.






@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

Before you follow Hawkin’s advice, you need to do one thing. @yrger/chunkhead change your point of view.

Hi everyone, if you can read this post from me, even though I don't use the reply feature, and get my ideas, thanks a lot.

I like people who go from ideas and search for evidence to their ideas in the concrete reality of life outside ideas in the mind.

For example, I have the idea of God, so I go to the concrete reality of the world outside our mind, like in our neighborhood, to seek evidence of God.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@deadgerbil

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW


You Doc say: "Assume for the moment that there is no god, it all myth.
Is the universe, with all its infinite wonder and life any less incredible ?

On that assumption from you, I tell you that ultimately you are claiming that the unverse came from nothingness.

Supposing that ultimately there is no permanent self-existent creator of everything that not independently existing, then we would not be here discussing God exists or not.






DocSavage · M
@yrger /chunkhead
Atheist to theist, answer this simple question : Assume for the moment that there is no god, it all myth.
Is the universe, with all its infinite wonder and life any less incredible ?

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Thodsis

@Mithraia


Please pay the most focused attention to the text below in bold and italic.

From Yrger the theist:
Hi atheists and everybody else whether atheists or not but who is rational and intelligent but negative toward the existence of God, would it be possible for me Yrger the theist here to ask you all guys to in not more than 50 words tell me what is your concept of God?

Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread

The physical universe (what other sort is there) isn't 'working to order'

It's the way it is because otherwise it would be a different universe... a different universe that looked as if it was 'working to order'.

...and that universe would be the way it is because otherwise it too would be a different universe... a different universe that looked as if it was 'working to order'.

Your questions are so banal, and the answers are so self-evident, that I suspect you simply enjoy wasting everyone's time with trivialities.

You say (on the basis of nothing except intellectual laziness) that your gods don't need a beginning.

If that assumption is in any way valid, then it's equally valid to assume that the universe didn't need a beginning.

In which case, there's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods. The entire postulation becomes unnecessary, and can be dispensed with.

So much for your gods.

So, now that you have abandoned your gods, why are you still here trying to be noticed?

Hi atheists here and all humans with reason and intelligence, don't ask me questions, just make your categorical statements in less than 50 words, on your position with regard to the existence of the God of nature.

My position is that the God of nature exists, and here is my definition of God:
"The God (of nature) is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature."

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

You talk about God as a singular entity. What about multiple Gods? Why is this limited to monotheism?

@CorvusBlackthorne

Where have you been?


See if you can explain or not why ultimately there is a self-existent being in the realm of reality.

If you are so timid to think on that, then see if you can think over this statement:

The default status of reality is existence, yes or no.




CorvusBlackthorne · 46-50, M
@yrger Projecting again?

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW


Hi all atheists, you are asking me what is the meaning of the word, ultimately.

It means finally.

W humans know that different kinds of beings in the material-physical universe came into existence in time and in space in succeeding situations.

For example, we came from our parents and our parents from their parents and on and on and on . . .

Regressing further and further into the past, we finally arrive at what I call ultimately the permanent self-existent reality that is the source of all not-self-existent beings.

With you atheists, you ultimately arrive at nothingness which to you is the final situation of all things in the material-physical universe.

And that is a most absolutely absurd status.

From Yrger the theist and author of the thread, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

Correction: the line below, "No, it's begging the question" should read: No, it's not begging the question."


Corrected version:
@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@DocSavage

Well, hi Doc, I am still waiting to read your definition of the ultimately catalyst-God: in not more than 50 words.



@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW







yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

You say "God is a catalyst ."

In which case, please define what is utlimately a catalyst-God: in not more than 50 words.

@newjaninev2

Hi Newj, you ask me, "If you claim a being created the universe - what created that being?"

Let me see if you do serious thinking instead of vacuous words-crafting.

Here, you must have an answer of sorts to your own question addessed to me, otherwise we will never get to arrive at the answer that we should accept to be correct, according to serious thinking, instead of your vacuous words-crafting.

Let me now read your reaction.




@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread

In answer to your question - I think that you repeated your own comment because you wanted to say something just to able to read your own words but had nothing else to say, so you merely said the same thing again to make yourself feel good… otherwise you risked realising the reality of your irrelevance

Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So every comment I make will start a new thread

In the comment just above, you'll see that our existence is not associated with the existence of your god, so your claim is invalid.

Please respond to the argument I have laid out in that comment, or acknowledge that there is therefore no need for your god to exist.

@DocSavage


yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

Hi Doc, are you claiming that ultimately humans came from nothingness, yes or no?



@newjaninev2

@TheoreticSkeptic

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

From Yrger the theist and author of the thread, "Rational intelligent thinking brings man to the God of nature."

Correction: the line below, "No, it's begging the question" should read: No, it's not begging the question."


Corrected version:
@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW


You newjaninev2 say "The Big Bang was the beginning of expansion of a universe that already existed.
Now ignore that simple reality and go back to your deluded rantings."

I ask you newjaninev2, ultimately what being created the universe, or you claim that the universe created itself from nothing?

Finally got my answer through that thick bone plating between your ears ! About fucking time !

Still didn’t answer the question. You called me a coward. I don’t need to have a god watching my back. Do you ?

yrger/chunkhead
1) There have been thousands of gods throughout history (fact)
2) No god in history has ever been proven to exist.(fact)
3) Every god in history is man made. (Fact)
That alone is all the explanation there is.
Reason takes facts in to account . Faith ignores them.

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User


Addressing all atheists and also everybody else, I am Yrger the theist and author of the present thread.

I hope to get to know what kind of a world-view atheists have, including everyone else who do have a world-view that is positive or negative in effect toward God.

The God of concern is first before anything else the creator of everything that is not Himself.

My impression is that atheists are in the whole totally hostile emotionally against any world-view where God the creator has an indispensable presence.

Why are they so emotionally hostile to God?

So, hi atheists, why are you so emotionally hostile against God?

Please pay the most focused attention to the text below in bold and italic.

From Yrger the theist:
Hi atheists and everybody else whether atheists or not but who is rational and intelligent but negative toward the existence of God, would it be possible for me Yrger the theist here to ask you all guys to in not more than 50 words tell me what is your concept of God?

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User

@newjaninev2

Hi everyone, I am Yrger author of this thread, and I am addressing newj.


Please rewrite your post below, and express only one point the most important in your mind. As the post stands, you are incoherent.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

@SW-User



You all atheists are incoherent with your thinking manner, let me see if you can express what you think you understand in this text from Stephen Hawking:

@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW


Hi atheists here, I don't seem to read any reply from you all to my latest post.

Anyway, tell me, what is your ultimate explanation of how and why we humans are existing.


If you Doc had replied to my latest post, please write now and indicate that you are aswering my latest post, cite my latest post and re-act to the substance of my latest post, okay?

Actually, since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread,

Why on Earth do you think I'm suffering? I assure you, that's as far from reality as it's possible to get 😃

I guess you need me to be suffering, or to be bitter about something or other, or to be angry about something or other, or to be... well, the list of what you need goes on... but I'm sorry, I'm none of those things.


What god? I don't even postulate the exist of gods... difficult to feel hate and anger towards something I dismiss as an unnecessary and quite trivial sop for the fears and insecurities of others..

Sorry, but you'll need to try harder than that 😂

Okay, atheists, it's your turn to cite texts indicating scientists state the universe has no beginning.


@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis




Okay, hi atheists, let you and I talk about the finding by scienstists that the material-physical universe has a beginning.

From me:
This breakthrough idea later became known as the Big Bang! The Big Bang was the moment 13.8 billion years ago when the universe began* as a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded. Most astronomers use the Big Bang theory to explain how the universe began.

Cfr. do scientists state that the universe has a beginning
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=do+scientists+state+that+the+universe+has+a+beginning


Okay, atheists, it's your turn to cite texts indicating scientists state the universe has no beginning.



@DocSavage

@newjaninev2

@BibleData

@Emosaur

@LeopoldBloom

@HollyW

@BibleData

@Thodsis

Why do you believe that God created everything that man encounters in nature. If it's by reasoning, then show your reasoning.

Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread

I have already told you what I think of that text... it's a few comments below your original question in the same thread.

You have not objected to my views, so I take that as yet another indicator of your new-found atheism

Since you're always so rude as to post every comment as the start of anew thread, why should I (or anyone) give you the courtesy of using the 'reply' button.

So from now every comment I make will start a new thread,

Why are you going on about my relationship with my parents and within my immediate family?

Are you so seriously in need of hatred and discord and suffering that you imagine it happening to everyone else?

That's disgusting.

All four of my grandparents were atheists.

Their marriages were close and loving and ended only by death.

However, that has nothing to do with you.

Both of my parents were atheists.

My parents and I were close and loving until the day they died.

However, that has nothing to do with you.

My siblings and their families and my daughter are all atheists

My siblings and their families and my daughter and I are close and loving

However, that has nothing to do with you.

So express your hate and your confusion and your fear and your contempt for basic decency towards others somewhere else.

I have no need of it in my life.

Hi atheists, why are you all not taking notice of this thread started by me Yrger, I am the theist here.

At the beginning I thought that I noticed more than a hundred replies were made (by atheists?).

Then all replies disappeared.

What happened?

Perhaps the Similar Worlds personnel can tell me, what is happening - I am at a loss.