The Dumbest Thing Posted by a No-gods-bot

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of161
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 8, 2012
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed I do not.
Thus?
The bible's description of it's god is false:
Such a god is a paradox.
Thank you for bringing that point to light.
You've been very helpful at proving, to 100%, that your god cannot possibly exist as described in the bible:
Paradox.
Here is a fantastic story and some unbelivable vids about "other animals" intelligence:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/0...
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 8, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
Do you believe that it is impossible that an intelligent creator of creator of the universe exists? If you do, what is your evidence?
There's another thread here which is about finding evidence of God. You should ask questions there.

This thread is NOT about the theistic. It's about the atheistic position which is now deemed irrational.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 8, 2012
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Did I say with 100% certainty "not exist"? No.
But.
It is quite easy to prove the bible's god cannot possibly exist as portrayed.
So either the bible is flat-wrong, or it's god is myth or both.
The bible's depiction of a god contradicts itself all over the place.
Thus? The god it describes cannot possibly exist.
And you are proven to be ...
... wrong.
Again.
Here you are flooding this thread again with fallacies. Is the truth in some words or in the correct and truthful understanding of the words? The truth is in the correct and truthful understanding of the words.

So, if your understanding of the Bible's description of God ends up in a paradox the problem is then in YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

The funny thing about you is, in each message you use the advice given to bad debaters:
- When out of arguments, declare yourself a winner

You are quite funny in that way.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jan 8, 2012
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith,

Have you given some probability for the nonexistence of a creator of the material universe?

If you have, what probability have you given and what evidence do you have to support your inference for the probability?

So I ask you again:
Do you believe that it is possible that a creator of the universe exists? Yes or no?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 8, 2012
 
Redoran wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a fantastic story and some unbelivable vids about "other animals" intelligence:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/0...
I've seen exactly that.

There was a YouTube video the other day, wherein the dog's human had fabricated a tennis-ball-throwing robot.

The dog would run and fetch the ball, then carefully bring it back, and with quite a bit of dexterity, drop the ball into the chute.

The robot, detecting the presence of the ball, went through a cycle-- which the dog carefully watched (the robot's innards were visible through a transparent shell)-- and launched the ball down the hall once more-- and the dog was off.

It was obvious to me, from the video, the dog was quite aware of what was going on, and was immensely enjoying the experience.

Brilliant!

Here's a video

" http://www.scottishterriernews.com/2008/03/do... ;

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
This thread is NOT about the theistic. It's about the atheistic position which is now deemed irrational.
ONLY if by "irrational" you mean "disagrees with YOU".

Your massively large EGO is showing ...

... again.

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
So, if your understanding of the Bible's description of God ends up in a paradox the problem is then in YOUR UNDERSTANDING.
Riiiiiight... because I do not have a Special Secret Bible-Decoder Ring?

Or is it because I do NOT suffer from massive head trauma?

Or, perhaps it is because I refuse to LIE to myself, when reading the bible?

Which is it?

<laughing>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
Bob of Quantum-Faith,
Have you given some probability for the nonexistence of a creator of the material universe?
I have no idea-- I was >>strictly<< speaking of your Bible-god, and no other gods.

You seem unable to focus-- perhaps you need your medications adjusted?

Ask the nice men in the white coats about that, why don't you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
So I ask you again:
Do you believe that it is possible that a creator of the universe exists? Yes or no?
Define "creator" and perhaps we can continue down this path.

For that word (creator) can have a multiplicity of meanings.

But.

Your bible's god? Is >>not<< one of them.

Repeat: your bible's god? The one YOU worship? Is >>not<< the creator of anything--

-- for the bible's god is a paradox as DESCRIBED BY THE BIBLE.

And no-- I understand the bible quite well enough.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 8, 2012
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
ONLY if by "irrational" you mean "disagrees with YOU".
Your massively large EGO is showing ...
... again.
<laughing>
You do have a serious comprehension problem, don't you?

It is perfectly fine if you don't believe.
But if you believe in nonexistence without any evidence that is very irrational.

From your posts here I notice that you are quite driven by emotions. So I suspect that you too have some sort of emotional reason for believing in nonexistence of the creator.

The funny thing is that you are absolutely unable to answer this question:
Do you believe there is some possibility that a creator of the universe exists?

Are you weak and unable to answer that question with "yes" or "no"?

My prediction is that you are unable to answer because then you would indicate that you believe in nonexistence of a creator without any evidence.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

humble brother wrote:
This has to be:
"I don't believe anything without evidence"
Then they post another message:
"I believe no gods exist"
That's the very definition of irrational thinking.
Many of these funny atheists also say:
"Nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence"
Can you believe these yahoos? ;)
The reason that these statements appear contradictory
is because you don't understand what they actually mean

because you do not understand naturalism
or the study of nature, which is science

Statement: "I don't beleive things without evidence"

This does not mean that I have to personally evaluate or experience or understand - this is an incorrect literal interpretation - which is the usual level of thinking of a religious person, because belief is the word they use to describe the moment that they accept the premise without further evaluation.

To a naturalist, to beleive something means accepting a premise that has been arrived at over time, and revealed through the collective and cooperative work of many people who have made logical and intuitive leaps arising from their robust and complex understanding of the work.

To beleive isn't an acceptance without question, but to come to understand potential, probability, random chance and verified foundations that have withstood the test of human knowledge - which is why science changes over time - because it's a process of incorporating new information and ideas.

Whereas, religion is handed down complete and unchanged - except for fits and starts where it had to change to remain in the world, instead of consigned to the mythology section of the book store.

"I beleive no gods exist"

That is a leap, not of faith, but a statement of credibility and logic.

It's not an emotional beleive that is felt because belief in a god or gods is an emotional belief that is satisfying and makes you feel comforted and connected

There is no emotional content in the statement that no gods exist, it is a logical and intellectual position that means

many have claimed a god or gods, but none have proven or provided any evidence - thus, there are no premises, evidence, work that has been presented that is verifiable.

religion is not a theory, it's a hypothesis - and not even a good guess based on wishful and magical thinking and without substance - it is pure emotion and emotion alone.

instead, people through the ages have tried to sort out how to make the world a better place and how to communicate those ideas - and not knowing or understanding the human body

opened themselves up to experiences - often drug related - and felt things and the way that their personal expereinced felt could only be interpreted through what they beleived about the world

so the washes of love and comfort where mis-interpreted as gifts from the gods and the person went out in the world and figured out how to make others feel the same way - and that feeling became the basis by which converts were made and some people who got into religion, saw the potential for wealth and power and that was the end of the goodness of religion.

"Nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence"

When there is no evidence, there is no trail to follow to discovery and understanding

because you say there's a god and I say there's an invisible pink unicorn who farts rainbows that cause all those same good feelings that you get from your god

so - it all comes down to your personal experience

I have as much proof for my rainbow farting invisible pink unicorn

as you do for your god

and in person, I can trigger in your brain all the same good feelings that you get from church

so prove that your god is real and my unicorn isn't.

and you can't, because all you can talk about is your experience of your religion and why it seems real to you

and I can talk about the human brain and explain all those feelings that you feel without reverting to goddidit

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 8, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

and there's nothing humble or brotherly

by your presumption that your tiny world

is the answer to everyone else's life

when you don't understand the complexity

or robustness of everyone else's life

because you settled for emotionally satisfying and intellectually empty answers

doesn't mean that the rest of us are so willing to settle

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
There's another thread here which is about finding evidence of God. You should ask questions there.
This thread is NOT about the theistic. It's about the atheistic position which is now deemed irrational.
I'm not asking for evidence of your god. I'm asking you for evidence of the creator of your God.

The only person declaring Atheism irrational is you - fortunately your considerations come with no particular logical authority.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
This has to be:
"I don't believe anything without evidence"
Then they post another message:
"I believe no gods exist"
That's the very definition of irrational thinking.
Many of these funny atheists also say:
"Nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence"
Can you believe these yahoos? ;)

The reason that these statements appear contradictory
is because you don't understand what they actually mean

because you do not understand naturalism
or the study of nature, which is science

Statement: "I don't beleive things without evidence"

This does not mean that I have to personally evaluate or experience or understand - this is an incorrect literal interpretation - which is the usual level of thinking of a religious person, because belief is the word they use to describe the moment that they accept the premise without further evaluation.

To a naturalist, to beleive something means accepting a premise that has been arrived at over time, and revealed through the collective and cooperative work of many people who have made logical and intuitive leaps arising from their robust and complex understanding of the work.

To beleive isn't an acceptance without question, but to come to understand potential, probability, random chance and verified foundations that have withstood the test of human knowledge - which is why science changes over time - because it's a process of incorporating new information and ideas.

Whereas, religion is handed down complete and unchanged - except for fits and starts where it had to change to remain in the world, instead of consigned to the mythology section of the book store.

"I beleive no gods exist"

That is a leap, not of faith, but a statement of credibility and logic.

It's not an emotional beleive that is felt because belief in a god or gods is an emotional belief that is satisfying and makes you feel comforted and connected

There is no emotional content in the statement that no gods exist, it is a logical and intellectual position that means

many have claimed a god or gods, but none have proven or provided any evidence - thus, there are no premises, evidence, work that has been presented that is verifiable.

religion is not a theory, it's a hypothesis - and not even a good guess based on wishful and magical thinking and without substance - it is pure emotion and emotion alone.

instead, people through the ages have tried to sort out how to make the world a better place and how to communicate those ideas - and not knowing or understanding the human body

opened themselves up to experiences - often drug related - and felt things and the way that their personal expereinced felt could only be interpreted through what they beleived about the world

so the washes of love and comfort where mis-interpreted as gifts from the gods and the person went out in the world and figured out how to make others feel the same way - and that feeling became the basis by which converts were made and some people who got into religion, saw the potential for wealth and power and that was the end of the goodness of religion.

"Nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence"

When there is no evidence, there is no trail to follow to discovery and understanding

because you say there's a god and I say there's an invisible pink unicorn who farts rainbows that cause all those same good feelings that you get from your god

so - it all comes down to your personal experience

I have as much proof for my rainbow farting invisible pink unicorn

as you do for your god

and in person, I can trigger in your brain all the same good feelings that you get from church

so prove that your god is real and my unicorn isn't.

and you can't, because all you can talk about is your experience of your religion and why it seems real to you

and I can talk about the human brain and explain all those feelings that you feel without reverting to goddidit
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 8, 2012
 
Khatru wrote:
I'm not asking for evidence of your god. I'm asking you for evidence of the creator of your God.
The only person declaring Atheism irrational is you - fortunately your considerations come with no particular logical authority.
You just refuse to comprehend :) that's so funny.

It is rational to not believe in something if there's no evidence.
It is irrational to believe in something if there's no evidence.

Isn't this the whole basis for atheistic thinking???

Or is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence???

Could you give a yes/no answer to the last question please.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

random ntrygg wrote:
The reason that these statements appear contradictory
is because you don't understand what they actually mean
because you do not understand naturalism
or the study of nature, which is science
Statement: "I don't beleive things without evidence"
This does not mean that I have to personally evaluate or experience or understand - this is an incorrect literal interpretation - which is the usual level of thinking of a religious person, because belief is the word they use to describe the moment that they accept the premise without further evaluation.
To a naturalist, to beleive something means accepting a premise that has been arrived at over time, and revealed through the collective and cooperative work of many people who have made logical and intuitive leaps arising from their robust and complex understanding of the work.
To beleive isn't an acceptance without question, but to come to understand potential, probability, random chance and verified foundations that have withstood the test of human knowledge - which is why science changes over time - because it's a process of incorporating new information and ideas.
Whereas, religion is handed down complete and unchanged - except for fits and starts where it had to change to remain in the world, instead of consigned to the mythology section of the book store.
"I beleive no gods exist"
That is a leap, not of faith, but a statement of credibility and logic.
It's not an emotional beleive that is felt because belief in a god or gods is an emotional belief that is satisfying and makes you feel comforted and connected
There is no emotional content in the statement that no gods exist, it is a logical and intellectual position that means
many have claimed a god or gods, but none have proven or provided any evidence - thus, there are no premises, evidence, work that has been presented that is verifiable.
religion is not a theory, it's a hypothesis - and not even a good guess based on wishful and magical thinking and without substance - it is pure emotion and emotion alone.
instead, people through the ages have tried to sort out how to make the world a better place and how to communicate those ideas - and not knowing or understanding the human body
opened themselves up to experiences - often drug related - and felt things and the way that their personal expereinced felt could only be interpreted through what they beleived about the world
so the washes of love and comfort where mis-interpreted as gifts from the gods and the person went out in the world and figured out how to make others feel the same way - and that feeling became the basis by which converts were made and some people who got into religion, saw the potential for wealth and power and that was the end of the goodness of religion.
"Nonexistence of evidence is evidence of nonexistence"
When there is no evidence, there is no trail to follow to discovery and understanding
because you say there's a god and I say there's an invisible pink unicorn who farts rainbows that cause all those same good feelings that you get from your god
so - it all comes down to your personal experience
I have as much proof for my rainbow farting invisible pink unicorn
as you do for your god
and in person, I can trigger in your brain all the same good feelings that you get from church
so prove that your god is real and my unicorn isn't.
and you can't, because all you can talk about is your experience of your religion and why it seems real to you
and I can talk about the human brain and explain all those feelings that you feel without reverting to goddidit
Is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence??? YES OR NO?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You just refuse to comprehend :) that's so funny.
It is rational to not believe in something if there's no evidence.
It is irrational to believe in something if there's no evidence.
Isn't this the whole basis for atheistic thinking???
Or is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence???
Could you give a yes/no answer to the last question please.
Same back to you and it's not funny, it's sad

is is rational to not accept claims lacking in evidence (atheism)

is is irrational to accept or beleive a claim lacking evidence (theism)

yes, as I have written it without word games, this is the basis and sum total of what atheism is

so, if you want to find out what we are in our world - naturalists - then we have to change the conversation from what we aren't - theists - to what we are - naturalists

but you have demonstrated over and over that your theism has prevented you from gaining any capacity to navigate or understand the natural world

and that leaves you with one discussion note

"beleive me"

and we say no

and then the conversation repeats, because you are not capable of having a meaningful discussion or exchange of views and experiences because nothing you are talking about resonates with us and nothing we say can resonates with you

and you just keep wanting to let your love light shine

because you don't understand that everyone feels that love light

and there's simply nothing divine about it

it's all inside of you waiting to be expressed

but the method that you are choosing to express it in

is not shiny and loving to us - it's black hearted cruel and evil

so we are literally not talking about the same religion

because your religion is not the christianity that's out there in the world

your religion is the nice loving one in your head

and you can't sell what's in your head without understanding

how people have experienced Christianity

and when you assert that Christians are moral and loving

you beleive that because that's your expereince

and you are mistakenly assuming that your experience is everyone else's experience and that is simply not the case

but you won't listen to the real harms that your religion has done to society and to individuals

instead you act as if the only true christian is you and why should you be tarred and feathered with the same brush as the lesser christians

but you are acting the same - telling us that you have all the answers

without any understanding of us as people or any understanding of our experiences and no understanding of the shared experience that Christianity has done to non-christians

you are not a messenger with a love message

you are a jack booted thug from a global organization that has a history of genociding inconvenient populations, murdering individuals who would have advanced our understanding of the universe because their ideas didn't feed or support the religion of the day and holding back social progress and limiting our freedom to take liberties with whatever makes us happy - which is what America was meant to do.

Religion is off message because it's not about people understanding the world and how to be in it

Religion says this is the way to be, so obey or suffer.

and when we don't obey, we suffer in spades

so, we don't need your abusive, authoritarian, control freak, domineering love that doesn't bother to take into account any part of our person or experience in the world.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jan 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

random ntrygg,

This is a very simple question:

Is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence??? YES OR NO?

But you're not a logical person are you?

So I suppose you will be hiding in the pile of vagueness that you have gathered around you. Have a nice time in your pile :)

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jan 8, 2012
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen exactly that.
There was a YouTube video the other day, wherein the dog's human had fabricated a tennis-ball-throwing robot.
The dog would run and fetch the ball, then carefully bring it back, and with quite a bit of dexterity, drop the ball into the chute.
The robot, detecting the presence of the ball, went through a cycle-- which the dog carefully watched (the robot's innards were visible through a transparent shell)-- and launched the ball down the hall once more-- and the dog was off.
It was obvious to me, from the video, the dog was quite aware of what was going on, and was immensely enjoying the experience.
Brilliant!
Here's a video
" http://www.scottishterriernews.com/2008/03/do... ;
LOL! Just amazing.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jan 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You just refuse to comprehend :) that's so funny.
It is rational to not believe in something if there's no evidence.
It is irrational to believe in something if there's no evidence.
Isn't this the whole basis for atheistic thinking???
Or is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence???
Could you give a yes/no answer to the last question please.
There's no evidence that your god was created by a greater entity.

Do you believe that your god has a creator who made him?

Strange how you don't seem to want to answer the very question you're asking of us.

You really should try to set a better example and refrain from asking us to do something that you're not prepared to do yourself.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of161
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••