Anonymous wrote:See "invisible man up in the sky" strawman concept to say it's crazy.

Does it have to be male? Gendered at all?
Up in the sky?

Why not cut to the heart of it and say
"They still believe in an unseen spiritual presence that is everywhere"

And go from there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

There you go again just making sh!t up. No where in the quoted posts did it make any of the claims you put up as your straw man to attempt to knock down.

Keep at it though. Eventually you might make a good argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

There you go again just making sh!t up. No where in the quoted posts did it make any of the claims you put up as your straw man to attempt to knock down.

Keep at it though. Eventually you might make a good argument.

Right -- so what if the majority of religious people aren't fundamentalists -- they still believe in an invisible man up in the sky. It's so crazy for intelligent adults to believe such a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

There you go again just making sh!t up. No where in the quoted posts did it make any of the claims you put up as your straw man to attempt to knock down.


You remind me of somebody on a sailing forum. That you, Wess?
Keep at it though. Eventually you might make a good argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

There you go again just making sh!t up. No where in the quoted posts did it make any of the claims you put up as your straw man to attempt to knock down.

Keep at it though. Eventually you might make a good argument.

Right -- so what if the majority of religious people aren't fundamentalists -- they still believe in an invisible man up in the sky. It's so crazy for intelligent adults to believe such a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

There you go again just making sh!t up. No where in the quoted posts did it make any of the claims you put up as your straw man to attempt to knock down.

Keep at it though. Eventually you might make a good argument.

Right -- so what if the majority of religious people aren't fundamentalists -- they still believe in an invisible man up in the sky. It's so crazy for intelligent adults to believe such a thing.

Why is it crazy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

There you go again just making sh!t up. No where in the quoted posts did it make any of the claims you put up as your straw man to attempt to knock down.

Keep at it though. Eventually you might make a good argument.

Right -- so what if the majority of religious people aren't fundamentalists -- they still believe in an invisible man up in the sky. It's so crazy for intelligent adults to believe such a thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

There you go again just making sh!t up. No where in the quoted posts did it make any of the claims you put up as your straw man to attempt to knock down.

Keep at it though. Eventually you might make a good argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Yesh, so easy to insist that "god" and "religion" must be defined by extremes that you claim without statistical backup that "most" of ReligionX believe, such as the literal Bible is inerrant word of God (lots of believers don't, lots of protestants and catholics are not fundamentalistss or evangelicals btw), then claim it's fantasy bunk or must be followed absolutely or person is not a believer (untrue).

We really need a better caliber of atheists on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Stop pretending your definition aligns with how the overwhelming majority of people would define god. Just because you made up your own definition of what god is or should be doesn't mean others have to agree with you.

I was asked for my definition of god, not yours or anyone else’s

So instead of going with the normal definition, you just create your own that is supported by nothing other than your own viewpoint. Thus, its based on your own self created pile of BS.

That's not a religion and it's not worth sharing here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Quit trying to call "something bigger than us" God.

Said who? Why do you have any authority to tell other people how they should call the things???? If I choose to call you a God, this is my choice, and I will keep doing it regardless you believing it or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I need a definition of god before I can respond.

Define it then.

here’s mine: the interconnectedness of life

Yet another logical fallacy.

Does this mean only surviving life today is part of your "god"? What do you consider happened to all the species that have gone extinct over the course of time on this planet? How does this provide space for life elsewhere in the universe? How is this related to creating the cosmos?

Lastly, if your god is reduced to such an inconsequential role, why bother with believing in it? What purpose does it serve?

It just means there is something bigger than all of us and we are part of the web of life. If you have trouble calling it “god”, think of it as an ecosystem. Like a tree isn’t just a tree, it has specific types of insects and birds and fungi and other things that are living in it and below it and we need it all. Stop trying to fit your definition of a god into mine.

Quit trying to call "something bigger than us" God.

Anonymous wrote:If there were a god children would not die or suffer.

If there were a god, there would be no child molesters in church, which by the way is the number one place that heinous act happens.