I Know That God Does Not Exist

I'm asking how it would be possible for thousands of people with different religious beliefs, different cultural backgrounds and different languages to have exactly the same biases. That would require one immense conspiracy. And yet you, without a frigging clue about the evidence involved, manages to come up with "the right answer".

Millions of scientists world wide. You can't consider them because they are not blinded by your religious delusions. Because all the evidence ever produced, especially the last 200 years, has already shown your flud to be bunk BS wrong and of no consequence to reality.Most scientists do not willingly waste their carreers studying what they already know to be crap junk religious delusions. As are you to your view. The difference being your view is known to be crap and their view is known to be reality.And that scientific reality is as independent-minded and as fair as humanity can get.

How utterly ignorant can you be? Both Protestants and Popes burned, hanged and tortured plenty of heretics, witches and homos well into the 1750s.Your protestant reformation only spread the disease into new cults.Your religion is evil.

I'm aware of a few, very few, Protestant punishments of heretics, such as of the Anabaptists, which were soon after soundly repudiated. Interesting that when I google it, trying all sorts of ways to say "Punishment of heretics BY PROTESTANTS" I get lots of entries about Protestants BEING punished by Catholics. Since that reflects my own understanding I think it a lot truer than the claim that Protestants did the same. I know they did in very few situations. It was far less Protestant policy than a sort of holdover from their Catholic days that eventually was completely rejected.So since you are so convinced and call me ignorant for my view of it, please prove your accusation. Article about the Anabaptists at Wikipedia blurs together persecutions by Protestants and Catholics so it's hard to tell exactly what the role of Protestants was. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say my view is "known to be crap" but I'd guess you don't even know what my view is. It's absolutely unique to me so how could it be "known to be crap?" As usual I doubt anybody really gets what my view is. They always say they do but they really don't. And I'm VERY sure YOU don't.

An established scientific position recognized around the world is not a conspiracy.

This is a long one. Lots of different historians. I'll list the index then one snippet. Protestant InquisitionThe index ...I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
II. PROTESTANT DIVISIONS AND MUTUAL ANIMOSITIES
III. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
IV. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
V. VIOLENT RADICALISM AND THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION
VI. DEATH AND TORTURE FOR CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANT DISSIDENTS
VII. PROTESTANT WITCH HUNTS
VIII. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP

quote:

---

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism - the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!

​

"Nor should we ever forget that . . . the Protestants were the aggressors, the Catholics were the defenders. The Protestants were attempting to destroy the old, established Christian Church, which had existed 1500 years, and to replace it by something new, untried and revolutionary. The Catholics were upholding a Faith, hallowed by centuries of pious associations and sublime achievements; the Protestants, on the contrary, were fighting for a creed . . . which already was beginning to disintegrate into hostile sects, each of which, if it gained the upper hand, commenced to persecute the rest!

---

--Auguste Comte, (Philosophie Positive, vol.4, p.51)

The only things we know of your views are what you have told us several times here on this forum over this last decade+.Unless your expressed views here were all lies then, M'Lady, your anti-scientific views as expressed are known to be crap. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I don't think you understand.We don't have to look for God at all - because the idea has no connection to reality.
What rational connection exists from God to reality to show us where to rationally look?Therefore - I know we have looked for God "enough" because we don't have to look at all.This isn't digging a deeper hole, this is explaining. Both are true.
There's no need to look.
Many people (including a bit myself) have irrationally looked - we've looked for God even though there's no rational connection between "the idea of God" and reality. Even these irrational searches have provided no evidence for God.Therefore, the conclusion "I know that God does not exist" still stands perfectly fine. Not so.
It's that I've uncovered your confusion and brought it to the surface twice.
You refuse to accept that you're confused - and you blame it on me.But everyone can see the farce you've created and how useless it is in any rational sense of "knowing things."Imagination is not reality.
In order to claim that your imagination should provide doubt to a rationally-based conclusion of knowledge - you need to connect your imagination to reality in some way.Just show the connection between God and reality and you have a point.
Keep avoiding that - and the conclusion stands: I know that God does not exist.

Yes, we do.This is one of your big problems.
You can't know anything at all.But, clearly, we do know things - so you are wrong. This issue exists for all things we know.
Including positive evidence for things.And yet no one (but you) has issues saying we know things exist, or that we know things don't exist.
Because no one thinks that knowledge claims are absolute. Knowledge claims are understood to be tentative conclusions based on the information we currently have available to us.

Now you're trying to go back and change what you claim you said. That's a no-no, kid!

I was pointing out how the Tamil were pioneers of the suicide bombings, though not of terrorism itself.If you want to look at how Buddhists promote their religion, just look at their treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar.It's simply a fact that, as Christopher Hitchens puts it in his book, religion poisons everything.

Not no meaning, no.
But the difference is subtle - and ringo is abusing that subtlety in order to create confusion.
In fact, ringo and I had already discussed this - I don't know why he's insisting on clinging to the confusion with Sarah when I've already made the distinction clear.Specifically for God:1. The idea of God within one's imagination can be rational.
2. The idea that God actually exists is not rational.In a more general form:1. Any idea can be rational when based on the correct "ifs."
2. To rationally consider that any idea actually exists, one needs a connection between the imagination and reality. Without this - it is irrational to consider that the idea actually exists.ringo seems to want to use the word "rational" in the context of "an idea based on the proper ifs" and use it to give credence to the use of the word "rational" in the context of "an idea actually existing in reality."The problem, of course, is that imagination is not reality.
Therefore, ringo's confusion doesn't logically follow - it's irrational.

Thank you for giving evidence.Comte has no understanding of the actual historical situation. Just calling the Roman Church "the old established Christian Church" shows his total ignorance of the issues. The Reformation had exposed Catholicism as paganism rather than Christianity, paganism with a few remnants of Christianity thrown in so that there could actually be some Christians among them, without which there couldn't have been a Reformation at all since they were able to recognize the antichristian nature of Romanism by studying the Bible. And they exposed the papal system as the heir of the Roman pagan religions in complete contradiction with Christianity. The garb worn by the Pope and the priests of Romanism was, and is, the same garb worn by the priests of the pagan religions. It has absolutely zero relation to anything Christian. Also, Comte says this supposed original Christian Church goes back 1500 years, which it still claims to itself, but the fact is that the papacy was established in 606 AD by the Byzantine emperor Phocas, calling the Bishop of Rome the supreme bishop, and it was Pope Gregory who declared that such a designation made the Pope the antichrist. Which became a theme of the Reformation as one by one the Reformers recognized the doctrines of Rome to be the doctrines of the Antichrist. Including the forbidding of meats, so that they had fish on Friday, and the requirement of celibacy for their priests and nuns, which became the cause of all the sexual explotation they are now known for. Those two doctrines are specifically identified in the Bible as the marks of a false teacher.As for the Protestant persecutions, Comte doesn't spell them out and neither do you. There were a few that were soundly denounced by the Protestants in later years because they WERE violations of their own doctrine. But there is nothing in them to compare with the Roman Inquisitions which, according to the estimate of Plaisted, over 600 years murdered some 67 million "heretics" of which 50 million were dissidents against Romanism the Reformers recognized as early Protestants. Protestant persecutions of heretics were considered to be mistakes even by many Protestant leaders at the time but now universally by Protestantism at large. But Catholicism has never repudiated their Inquisition, it is still on their books and ready to be revived as needed. One Pope made a phony "apology" in which he blamed the Catholic people for what was actually the work of the papacy of which the people were largely ignorant.So what I said originally is true. You would not be burned at the stake by any Protestants but if they ever get their power back it might happen at the hands of the Roman Catholics. Not too likely in America where they have been tamed by the Protestant influence and by American patriotism, but there are still Catholic murders of Protestants in third world Catholic countries, in South America for instance. As late as the late nineteenth century the general Garibaldi discovered torture dungeons in the Vatican when he took the city of Rome, where the Inquisition was still being practiced in secret. There is reason to believe it still persists in secrecy in some Catholic countries.I don't have quotes to offer but on this page you'll find a list of books in which this sort of information can be found:Roman Catholicism & Other Antichrists & ApostasiesEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you are going to refer to historical facts, such as how Buddhists supposedly persecuted some group or other, you need to describe the situation at least, say which Buddhism you are talking about since there are many versions of it and so on.As for religion poisoning everything, funny how the greatest number of murders in the name of ideologies were done in the last century by secular ideologies. (Interestingly, however, there was Catholic influence in many of them, even on Hitler and Stalin but also Pol Pot, and it was a Catholic radio broadcast that caused the murders in Rwanda.)_ Today Christians are being persecuted by the leaders of Communist China. They do this from time to time and there is currently a new wave of it. Some religious persecutions also continue though, against Christians by Hindus in India and all over Asia and Africa by Muslims.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.