[DeeVeeOSs]

no amount of god can explain the co-adaptation of a parasitic wasp injecting her eggs into the intestines of an unwitting caterpillar so her brood can eat their way out of

all u religious wackos, you are all atheists relative to the ancient polytheists, i just go one god further

You don't go one further, you simply make god into a "God". You're not separate from your theistic counter parts, and then you feel free to further compartmentalize it/"god" into an object within our locale, within this universe.

Take the Sun God, or Thunder God, take Ra.

How do you figure, you simplistic nitwit, that you can label ?THE CATALYST/EQUIVALENT? of all that we know (*whatever, In Fact, that catalyst may be*), as something that only "began" *after* all we know already existed?

It's exactly like saying "you're here because you %^&*ed yourself".

That sounds like a DEITY to me.

Leave "god" FAR from that word, lest your repulse me with the same amount and quality of faith that the theists abuse.


At least promoters put Tyson up against dudes that could and did dismantle him.

It's cheap and disingenuous that Dick and the other 3 haven't discussed these topics with the people that can hurt book sales.

They feed on:
Embellishment.
Sentiment.
No different than a lawyer, who's forced to make a case against someone he/she doesn't know is guilty or innocent, but note the mandated 'one-sidedness' within that example.
Politicking.
A tidy, LOCAL, so-called "neatly" wrapped up (mis)understanding; cute really, (but so-called "complete" and completely petty at the same time.)


No it won't do to quote Dick. Many of his points are based on premises that you don't/can't share.
You simply haven't got the facilities to know where to start to defend them.

Some of his premise, for instance, are there to sell books.

No different than a politician.
And you, like a simplistic thinker, eat it up the same way those simple nitwits gave Georgie a second term in office...or a first one for that matter.

---

My first "fyou" will be simple.

We all know who Santa is. We can all describe about 250 things about Santa.
Same with a pink unicorn.
Same with pink teapots orbiting your planet of choice.

All of this can be discussed as all of these have attributes.

Jesus even, has clear attributes.

(I sort of wish he'd instead of hopping up on the tree there, practically accomplishing 'god-knows-what', instead have done something for the human condition. The here and now. Maybe therein giving the people "a heaven before they go to heaven" type of thing heh.)

Nonetheless, long hair, blue eyes, hung on a cross, hung out with the hookers, made trees die when he got upset time to time etc. You know, *locale attributes*.

That's all fine and well my friend. But I'd really like you to tell me *1* attribute of this so called "god" you speak so much about. What do you think you talking about when you say "god"?

You "believe in one less god"?
Yeah? Then why don't you tell me about this.
You use the word "god" in context with a noun. EXACTLY what are you describing?

"One less god"? Yeah really? What have you tested for....

For example, if you tell me there is a pink unicorn in my room, I can test for that.
If you say there is a tight GT convertible in my garage, I know how to test for that. Easily. I could have anyone in this world test for it too. They wouldn't even need to speak English.

But when you say "god"... you sound inept without some attributes to accompany the word.
Again, I'm no interested in a subjective postulation, I'm interested with what In-Fact, you think you are describing?

Now the theists are excused because, well, faith. They're therefore not even in the vicinity of my lab.
They're off my radar.

But you....you little dipshit....you step in my pristine, sterile, white and clean lab, with your clumsy oversized
rubber boots with chunks of mud and dog shit falling off in a yellow raincoat. Asking "whats this and whats that" as you bobble and fumble and break and misplace my hardware...

...and you do it in the pretense of being anywhere near a peer. A scientist. You don't doff your boots at the door and you don't don a labcoat.

Tell me this you twerp.

What kind of scientist says, "bah we can't know so we won't even try"?
*NONE* of the ones that you've read about in history.

Agnostic:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that ***human knowledge is limited to experience***.

Bye bye Wright, Edison, Curie, Pasteur, I guess we'd still have LSD...nonetheless. No more mushroom in the sky. And if you say those are all indirets of our experience? Then there is no foundation to say we can't ascertain so much as one attribute of our "?catalyst?" or the matter of "All The Facts".

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.



Wow, that's REAL scientific there buddy.

Why don't you give it some thought...what Einstein had to wrap his mind around.
I suppose you and I can't appreciate that, although, it's the best example.

Notice how Einstein never really said, "I'm this, or, I'm that"??
It's not because he hadn't given it thought, it's because there is no word to describe the spirituality the man had.
None of them fit.

But, "we won't go there because we can't know" was MOST DEFINITELY not in his vocabulary.
How bloody and boring of a statement is that? Garbage science. Blasphemy in my books.

Agnostics and their cloppy muddy rubber boots and filthy yellow rainjackets they like to think of as lab coats



It's here where I find it ironic that the sci method was apparently fathered by a simple theist rather than you and yours in all your "soft-atheist" glory.


You're not a scientist, you're a punk.
You don't ask questions about anything real, only your "God". You feed yourself Dick's politics by the Keg full.
And now look at you! You're a a meta-drunk that doesn't and can't make sense of a @#$%ing thing you are saying.

Oh you can?
Then what do you mean when you say "god"?

I hope you're getting the sense that to be an atheist you can't use that word.
I hope you're getting the sense that when YOU say "god" it completely undermines and implodes your position.
The best you can do is, "there is no, what THEY mean, when THEY say 'God' as they've described"


No? I lie?


Then please tell me the attributes of this "God" is that you've tested for.
I know there is not a pink unicorn in my room my friend.
I know the attributes of the noun being used.


Now how about you tell me some attributes of "all there is" or "what is" or "reality in total" or "our catalyst IF we even have a catalyst" or "what is in fact".

How about you face up to the real "?definition?" of god as it was first intended instead of putting in with the theists, like yourself, that have assigned their own attributes to the word and then just "rolled with it from there."

Dressing up the reality of the idea like a Barbie. Like a buffet.

God: The most widely erected, disingenuous STRAWMAN FALLACY / TUCK TAIL RED HERRING EVASIVE SIDE STEP known to man.

god: "?whatever is?" "?the fact of the matter?" Perhaps something on the line of "information itself" maybe?


I have no more time allotted for the likes of you.
I digress.

You're right I'm wrong. I never thought of it that way before. Good point.

"You just believe in one less." Wow. That's so %$*ing clever. I can see I'm clearly outmatched...the way you repeat things you find clever....


You kiddies are no different than suppressed housewives and it was only Dick D. that you needed to come and liberate you into fallacious quasi-meta-whores. - DVO

Yeah. I like that.

THAT'S clever.


PS- No need to reply. This was directed at parts of your brain your conscious can't access. I'd love to speak with in in about 3-4 years after you've had time to process it into filterable thought(s) capable of your conscious mind.

I have no interest in your mind's forefront. Seriously. Don't reply.