Comments
161 - 180 of 183 Comments Last updated Dec 1, 2013

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#166
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhh,...caps are larger.
And even then? The tiny words?

Were obviously too much for your low grade sub-intelligence.

Pitiful.
Answers in science

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#167
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Buck doing what she does best - trolling.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#168
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Reason Personified <quoted text> There is no god to deny. Atheism is the lack of a theistic "ism", as in .... there is no god to deny, so no need for an "ism"' with which to sale said god.
Atheist means not theist.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>
You are reading what is not there to read.
No, it doesn't mean that.

And no, it is not that.

You are lying about the etymology.

"Atheist" did not arise from the prefix "a" and "theist".

It arose from the prefix "a" and the Greek word "theos", which means "god".

"Atheos" = no god.

"Atheism" = believing there is no god.

It is NOT a lack of belief. It is a belief, same as theism.

Theism is from the Greek "theos", meaning "god".

"Atheism" - no god.

Why are atheists such liars, even about their own belief?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#169
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Reason Personified

.... there is no god to deny,...
You just denied it.

If there was nothing to deny, you could not deny it.

You deny that you deny it, while denying it.

You are a moron, RaisinPenisFried.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#170
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And even then? The tiny words?
Were obviously too much for your low grade sub-intelligence.
Pitiful.
"Sub-intelligence"??

Bob, you are the least intelligent poster on Topix.

You are dumber than RaisinPenisFried.

You are also a liar.

I hope RaisinPenisFried doesn't take this as a slight.

Sorry, Raisin.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sub-intelligence"??
Yes. You continually demonstrate you lack not only an education, but a brain to go with it.

Not only that? You are simply a horrid person.

It is no wonder everyone dislikes you so.

How's prison life treating you?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Jun 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't mean that.
And no, it is not that.
You are lying about the etymology.
"Atheist" did not arise from the prefix "a" and "theist".
It arose from the prefix "a" and the Greek word "theos", which means "god".
"Atheos" = no god.
"Atheism" = believing there is no god.
It is NOT a lack of belief. It is a belief, same as theism.
Theism is from the Greek "theos", meaning "god".
"Atheism" - no god.
Why are atheists such liars, even about their own belief?
"Atheism" - no theism.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173
Jun 2, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You just denied it.
If there was nothing to deny, you could not deny it.
You deny that you deny it, while denying it.
You are a moron, RaisinPenisFried.
"There is no god to deny", is what I wrote. I did not write >> "I deny the god, that I say doesn't exist to deny'. can you see the difference?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Jun 2, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sub-intelligence"??
Bob, you are the least intelligent poster on Topix.
You are dumber than RaisinPenisFried.
You are also a liar.
I hope RaisinPenisFried doesn't take this as a slight.
Sorry, Raisin.
You skipped breakfast and lunch again, didn't you? "Food", is never far from your mind, at anytime right?
LCNLin

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#175
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism - lack of belief in god.
STILL trying in vain to change the definition of atheism according to your cult's ways LMAO.
You guys seriously are mentally ill.
Atheists converted by buck = STILL ZERO.
How do you arrive at your conclusions?

"Oh, the usual. I bowl. Drive around. The occasional acid flashback."

-the Dude in the Big Lebowski-
LCNLin

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what it means.
The word "atheist" means one who denies god; one who holds the belief that there is no god.
From the Greek word "atheos" - no god.
The ancient Greeks had lots of fun with atheism?
LCNLin

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

BeHereNow wrote:
An atheist has a belief in no god.
A dog has no such belief, we can presume, so a dog would not be an atheist.
A being who has no belief for or against a god, is simply uninformed, lacking knowledge, an agnostic.
If doge are capable or realizine they lack knowledge of god, they would be agnostic.
Since they probaly lack the knowledge of no knowledge, well, no atheist, no agnostic, no theist.
A being does not "have to be" one of these.
Very interesting ... do you have many religious dogs?
LCNLin

Pompano Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
Nov 29, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes-- I spoke in caps, because YOU are so ...
... morbidly stupid.
I had to keep things in tiny words.
And clearly, I should never have used the word 'emerging' as it was NOT in your vocabulary...
.... I suppose words of one syllable is your highest ability.
"I spoke in caps, because YOU are so ...
... morbidly stupid."

Wow -- that seems conclusive proof :-)

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Very interesting ... do you have many religious dogs?
So I take it you are not very good at logic.
You have used the fallacy of a false dilemma.

A living being does not have to be either an atheist, or a theist, one or he other, no exceptions.

There is no evidence that any dog has any beliefs concerning god.
If you know what dogs think or believe, you need to start a new career.

Atheism and theism are beliefs systems (or parts thereof).
Myself, I would guess that dogs have no thoughts concerning god.
No beliefs concerning god.
No belief system involving god.
LCNLin

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

11

11

11

BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you are not very good at logic.
You have used the fallacy of a false dilemma.
A living being does not have to be either an atheist, or a theist, one or he other, no exceptions.
There is no evidence that any dog has any beliefs concerning god.
If you know what dogs think or believe, you need to start a new career.
Atheism and theism are beliefs systems (or parts thereof).
Myself, I would guess that dogs have no thoughts concerning god.

No beliefs concerning god.
No belief system involving god.
Religion is based on faith and can not be proved.!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181
Nov 30, 2013
 

Judged:

12

12

9

BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you are not very good at logic.
You have used the fallacy of a false dilemma.
A living being does not have to be either an atheist, or a theist, one or he other, no exceptions.
There is no evidence that any dog has any beliefs concerning god.
If you know what dogs think or believe, you need to start a new career.
Atheism and theism are beliefs systems (or parts thereof).
Myself, I would guess that dogs have no thoughts concerning god.
No beliefs concerning god.
No belief system involving god.
You got it right except for one thing.

Atheism is the **opposite** of belief, and is not a belief system.

It is simply *not* having faith in deities or other supernatural bullshyt.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

11

11

11

LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is based on faith and can not be proved.!
And there is no proof in science.

Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scien...
~~~~
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
~~
While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic.
http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.ht...
~~~
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

12

12

12

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it right except for one thing.
Atheism is the **opposite** of belief, and is not a belief system.
It is simply *not* having faith in deities or other supernatural bullshyt.
Exactly.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

12

12

12

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You got it right except for one thing.
Atheism is the **opposite** of belief, and is not a belief system.
It is simply *not* having faith in deities or other supernatural bullshyt.
We know that certain groups of atheists are attempting to redefine "atheism".

That's fine.

Pedofiles are doing the same thing - not to suggest that atheist are pedofiles. I hope you don't make that illogical leap in assumption. It is difficult to know what the illogical will say.

It is common for groups with unpopular beliefs to redefine terms that describe them. We see it among the religious as well.

If I ask you if you believe in god - do you say "I have no thoughts about that subject." - or do you say "No, I do not believe in god."?
If you do not believe in god, than you have a belief about god, how can it be any other way.

You belief the concept of god should be rejected by a rational person.
This is not something you can support with science, as science does not regard the supernatural, it can only say "We have no evidence, so we will wait."
It is a philosophical position, and philosophy says rejection of the supernatural is part of a belief system.

If you have knowledge about a concept, and you reject that concept, you have a belief ("That belief is not truthful.")
Your mind has gone through a though process, and arrived at a conclusion - that you cannot not prove scientifically - only philosophically.

If you have no knowledge about a concept, you can claim ignorance.
"I have no belief about this thing I have never heard of."

You choose to claim knowledge about something.
How can you have knowledge about something, except by your beliefs, justified or not.
You and others have obviously given considerable thought to the concept of 'god'. You have considered this concept of 'god', and rejected it, based on your beliefs.

Google the words church and atheism, and you will find many statements by other fine atheists such as this:

“We get called the ‘atheist church,’ but we are really all the best bits of church but with no religion,” he said, darting his lanky form up and down the aisle, arms flapping like some excitable exotic bird.“Our vision is to help people live the best life possible.”

Now that is a belief system, pure and simple.
Yours is not as well defined, but your claim of simple ignorance rings hollow.
You do not have ignorance of the god concept, you have considered it thoughtfully, and rejected it.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185
Dec 1, 2013
 

Judged:

10

10

9

LCNLin wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is based on faith and can not be proved.!
Religion is easily proven. There are literally thousands of them, and they are not in hiding like the gods are. Faith can be proven to exist, but it cannot be proven to be a valid reason to believe in the absurdly impossible.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 31 min Catcher1 224,351
Our world came from nothing? 52 min NightSerf 240
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 4 hr Patrick 385
What does "Atheism" mean? 5 hr Reason Personified 10
Introducing The Universal Religion 6 hr Reason Personified 733
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 11 hr DonPanic 21,400
Talking some sense into you people... 12 hr religionisillness 24
•••
•••