Logicboy03:


The guy just hates me.....maybe I need to be praising his big grammar

. Just as josh hates me and wiegraf hates folykaze

Reyginus: Well said!

Shut up

Logicboy03:







Funny meme aside, why must we describe the evidence as scientific?

Lololol. My good lord come save us. And you neglect the spiritual evidence of the theist because it is not scientific.
I doff my HEART.

rationalmind:

Shut up

Make me.

Back to the op.

Just like I once said during a discussion with Josh, atheism has nothing to do with evolution and the big-bang.

I was already an agnostic before I familiarized myself with evolution and the big-bang. I had only heard about them with no particular knowledge about them. The big-bang most especially.

Reyginus: Lololol. My good lord come save us. And you neglect the spiritual evidence of the theist because it is not scientific.
I doff my HEART.

no. They deny anything that is spiritual or supernatural because it is "unscientific"


I asked plaetton if he believed in intuition and he didn't reply me, just dodged and ran away.

rationalmind:

. Just as josh hates me and wiegraf hates folykaze

I doubt anybody hates anyone. Smh

Reyginus: Lololol. My good lord come save us. And you neglect the spiritual evidence of the theist because it is not scientific.
I doff my HEART.

Like which spiritual evidence?

texanomaly:
I doubt anybody hates anyone. Smh

Lol, just joking

rationalmind: Back to the op.

Just like I once said during a discussion with Josh, atheism has nothing to do with evolution and the big-bang.

I was already an agnostic before I familiarized myself with evolution and the big-bang. I had only heard about them with no particular knowledge about them. The big-bang most especially.

Good for you, bro. But bros eh, where does an atheist get his morality from?

Joshthefirst: no. They deny anything that is spiritual or supernatural because it is "unscientific"


I asked plaetton if he believed in intuition and he didn't reply me, just dodged and ran away.

Plaetton knew where you were going. There was no need replying

Reyginus: Good for you, bro. But bros eh, where does an atheist get his morality from?

I don't know where other atheists get their morality from. I can only speak for myself.

I base my morality on the golden rule. I don't to others what I wouldn't have them do to me.

rationalmind:

Plaetton knew where you were going. There was no need replying

be quiet for pete's sake!

If intuition is a fact and an agreeable happening and it is not logical or physical, can't we deduce that there is an aspect of the universe and even of ourselves not logical or physical also?

Simple. Denying what is real will never help you or anyone else.

Joshthefirst: no. They deny anything that is spiritual or supernatural because it is "unscientific"


I asked plaetton if he believed in intuition and he didn't reply me, just dodged and ran away.

The hypocrisy stinks.
Plaetton is a better thinker compared to logicboy. Logicboy's case is chronic. But he is getting better.

rationalmind:

Like which spiritual evidence?

Lol. I'm sorry, none.

Joshthefirst: be quiet for pete's sake!

If intuition is a fact and an agreeable happening and it is not logical or physical, can't we deduce that there is an aspect of the universe and even of ourselves not logical or physical also?

Simple. Denying what is real will never help you or anyone else.

Lol, this is a case of you making leaps. If intuition is a fact, what makes you think it doesn't have some evolutionary basis? Don't ask me the basis because I don't know. I'm just saying it might have.

Reyginus: Lol. I'm sorry, none.

Lol, Good

rationalmind:

I don't know where other atheists get their morality from. I can only speak for myself.

I base my morality on the golden rule. I don't to others what I would have them do to me.

Golden rule? By who?

Logicboy03:

If I am being sued for non-payment and I produce both a receipt and a bank letter stating that I paid fund into the claimants account- isnt that evidence?

These are physical, and hence, scientific testaments: which can also be subjected to scientific verification. Still, end of the day, the kind of evidence of God you seek.

And a pity indeed, that in spite of the abundance in every iota and inch of life and living creatures about you, you will stare it all in the face; you will stare at the grand and stupefying design even of your own ungrateful body: and, thumb in mouth, nappies soaked, still screech: "no evidence! not a shred of evidence!"

If God appeared to all of us and then went back to heaven, would that be evidence? Must it be described as "scientific"?

O, yes, to the extent that you will want a physical appearance, scientifically recorded and verifiable as real, and not some holographic hoax.

Your mind is just as invisible as God is invisible: you do not doubt the existence of your mind because of its works. The mind of God is manifest also in the works of God.

rationalmind:

Lol, this is a case of you making leaps. If intuition is a fact, what makes you think it doesn't have some evolutionary basis? Don't ask me the basis because I don't know. I'm just saying it might have.

your saying it "might have" is illogical.

Although I don't even believe in evolution,
Answer me this question: is evolution a physical process? Is it a natural process? Or is it an extra-physical process? A supernatural process?

rationalmind:

Lol, Good

It cannot be explained by science so I wouldn't call it an evidence.

Reyginus: Golden rule? By who?

I don't know the origin of the golden rule. I don't think its even relevant. What is relevant is that I base my morality on it.

rationalmind:

I don't know the origin of the golden rule. I don't think its even relevant. What is relevant is that I base my morality on it.

chai.


May God have mercy on us.

We don't even care for the basis of our moral standings anymore.

Joshthefirst: your saying it "might have" is illogical.

Although I don't even believe in evolution,
Answer me this question: is evolution a physical process? Is it a natural process? Or is it an extra-physical process? A supernatural process?

What is illogical in using the word "might"?

Evolution is both a physical and natural process.

rationalmind:

I don't know the origin of the golden rule. I don't think its even relevant. What is relevant is that I base my morality on it.

I don't think you know what I am trying to do. That's even better.
Why do you think we need this Golden rule?

Joshthefirst: chai.


May God have mercy on us.

We don't even care for the basis of our moral standings anymore.

That's your headache not mine

Reyginus: I don't think you know what I am trying to do. That's even better.
Why do you think we need this Golden rule?

Keep deceiving yourself. What makes you think I don't know what ure trying to do. I know where ure going.

You should start by telling us how doing to others what you would have them do to you is wrong.

I don't need to tell you why you need it.

Reyginus: It cannot be explained by science so I wouldn't call it an evidence.

Tells us and let's see how sensible it is. Your spiritual evidence I mean. Let's take science out of the picture

rationalmind:

What is illogical in using the word "might"?

Evolution is both a physical and natural process.

so how can this physical and natural process give rise to intuition?

Joshthefirst: no. They deny anything that is spiritual or supernatural because it is "unscientific"


I asked plaetton if he believed in intuition and he didn't reply me, just dodged and ran away.

No....because it is illogical....we deny it because it is illogical



Logical Evidence-
Josh; I have a bat
Logicboy; prove it!
Josh; *produces a bat* here is the bat!



Illogical/spiritual evidence;
Josh; I have a bat
Logicboy; Prove it!
Josh; You cant prove that I dont have a bat!

Logicboy03:


No....because it is illogical....we deny it because it is illogical



Logical Evidence-
Josh; I have a bat
Logicboy; prove it!
Josh; *produces a bat* here is the bat!



Illogical/spiritual evidence;
Josh; I have a bat
Logicboy; Prove it!
Josh; You cant prove that I dont have a bat!

choi. Are you even following the convo on this thread at all?

rationalmind:

I base my morality on the golden rule. I don't to others what I wouldn't have them do to me.

And let us say that you are, for example, a masochist. You enjoy being whipped to within an inch of your life. Would this principle which you have mentioned make it morally apt to do same to others who think just like you.

To put it more lucidly. Let us say that you detest being disciplined. Your principle says that you would not do to others what you would not like them to do to you. In this instance therefore you would consider it morally wrong to discipline others who similarly detest discipline?