The Dumbest Thing Posted by a No-gods-bot

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of161
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
John K

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jan 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

To: Not so humble brother.

Energy can not be created or distroyed, it is what created the universe. It is the origin of everything you have ever experienced. It has no begining and no end. The energy that is contained in the universe had been and will always be. It will over time shift from one state or another but it will always persist. it is mindless and intentionless it has no purposes and no long term goals. It just is.

Now that is a fairly bold claim, don't you think? But that claim is backed by more evidence than your claim of a deity that resembles the one in the bible.

I do not belive in that which I do not understand. Those things I do not understand are unknown to me. I know that energy exist and I have evidence of its existance and I know that everything we have ever come in contact with has shown itself to be made of energy. We have never been able to study anything that is not made of energy.

So I leave open the idea that there may be something that exist that is not made of energy. But until I have the opportunity to study such an object I can not beleive that such an object exist. Just like your god. I have no reason to think that such a thing exist until I have the opportunity to study it. And I will not waste time contemplating such a thing until I am presented with some evidence of it's existance.

If your god is made of energy it can be studied if not then we will most likely never be able to actualy know anything about it. If it interacts with the energy of the universe on a regular or even an irregular basis we should in theory be able to discern something about it's nature. As of yet no evidence has been found that indicates that something like this is happening. So with no evidence of a deity we have no reason to believe one exist. If you can propose some way that we can test for the existance of a deity then put forth your idea for an experiment. We would all like to win a Nobel for testing the existance of deities.

Otherwise go back to the bronze age where your ideas had more merit.
the serpent was right

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You have a serious credibility problem.

You started this thread with supposed statements by atheists.
You were asked to provide references to verify those claims. You have failed to do so.
You are a liar.
the serpent was right

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Jan 8, 2012
 
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.
I'll give you an answer as soon as you provide the references requested at the start of this thread.

You started this thread witha fakse assertion. You were asked to provide proof of that assertion. You have failed to do so.
The fact that you have been answered at all after that failure on your part is a testament to the kindness of these posters. You deserve no responses until you meet the requested burden of proof.
Amused

Boston, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
How can a question be a strawman?
You have outdone yourself!
Questions that contain unproven assumptions can set up strawmen just as easily as declaratory sentences. It is a matter of substance, not punctuation. Your 'question' posits that some actual atheist has taken the described in your 'question'. Either there actually is such an atheist, or the posited atheist is a straw man. You've been asked to reference actual quotes from an actual atheist that reflect your claimed paraphrase. So far, the response from you has been an outbreak of tap dancing the likes of which haven't been seen since Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson shuffled off this mortal coil. Why is that? If your original post were written with an actual atheist's posts in mind, it would be trivial to locate and reference those posts, and much more convincing that the punctuation defense.

Since: Jan 08

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence??? YES OR NO?
Yes, since you have no evidence YOUR god exists, it is irrational that you don't understand we should believe you.

Evidence is repeatable and as of yet, no theist has presented any evidence of ANY god, let alone the Xtian god.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You do have a serious comprehension problem, don't you?
No-- it is you, who lacks the skill at meaningful communication.

This is quite obvious.

But I'm still waiting for your definition of 'creator'.

For, according to some?

The current universe was created by the gravitational intersection of two other universes.

Thus?

The creator of our universe is simply gravity--

-- a natural force that is without sentience.(kinda like you, actually...)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
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?
Your "question" is not a yes or no question, STUPID.

You must define >>EXACTLY<< what YOU MEAN by "creator".

Until you do that?

Your question cannot be answered honestly.

Why is this so hard for you to do?

Oh!

Because you have no more original thoughts than gravity?

Hmmmm.... that could be it.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
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.
Correct.

You are quite .... irrational.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
Is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence??? YES OR NO?
That is NOT a question, STUPID.

That is a loaded ASSumption on your part.

You ASSume that understanding is missing---

--- but you have no EVIDENCE this is so.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Jan 8, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it rational to believe in something you don't even understand if there's no evidence??? YES OR NO?
if there's no evidence there's nothing to understand

so no, it's not rational to beleive something you don't understand

but you can't judge what other people understand by what you understand

because when you don't let religion limit your thinking, you understand a lot more - and until religion stops clouding and limiting your thinking

you have no idea about what you don't understand

people outside of religion, get what religion is about

people inside, not so much
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Jan 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Khatru wrote:
There's no evidence that your god was created by a greater entity.
There is. As you might understand philosophical logical evidence is valid evidence for rational thinkers. Rational thinkers don't believe in paradoxes.

There can only be two explanations for the existence of the universe:
1. it was created at some point
or
2. is has always existed

Because of the nature of and laws that apply to energy (of which we have observable evidence) it would be irrational to think that first there was nothing and then suddenly physical matter appeared out of nothing. So this means that there is actual evidence against option #1 and supporting option #2.

From this it logically follows that energy has always existed. It has not necessarily always existed in the form of matter. We know that physical matter is known to be just another form of energy.

Again from this logically follows that if one believes the evidence of the big bang and the beginning of the material universe, then the birth of the material universe must have been an event of translation of immaterial energy into material energy i.e physical matter.

All of this is evidence that everything does not need to have a creator. So in that sense what has existed always, must be the first creator.
Khatru wrote:
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.
Now. I have clearly indicated my position and pointed you to observable evidence.

What is your evidence that everything must have a creator???
You must have something, otherwise you have based your beliefs on something irrational. What have you got?
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Jan 9, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

John K wrote:
To: Not so humble brother.
Energy can not be created or distroyed, it is what created the universe. It is the origin of everything you have ever experienced. It has no begining and no end. The energy that is contained in the universe had been and will always be. It will over time shift from one state or another but it will always persist. it is mindless and intentionless it has no purposes and no long term goals. It just is.
Now that is a fairly bold claim, don't you think? But that claim is backed by more evidence than your claim of a deity that resembles the one in the bible.
I do not belive in that which I do not understand. Those things I do not understand are unknown to me. I know that energy exist and I have evidence of its existance and I know that everything we have ever come in contact with has shown itself to be made of energy. We have never been able to study anything that is not made of energy.
So I leave open the idea that there may be something that exist that is not made of energy. But until I have the opportunity to study such an object I can not beleive that such an object exist. Just like your god. I have no reason to think that such a thing exist until I have the opportunity to study it. And I will not waste time contemplating such a thing until I am presented with some evidence of it's existance.
If your god is made of energy it can be studied if not then we will most likely never be able to actualy know anything about it. If it interacts with the energy of the universe on a regular or even an irregular basis we should in theory be able to discern something about it's nature. As of yet no evidence has been found that indicates that something like this is happening. So with no evidence of a deity we have no reason to believe one exist. If you can propose some way that we can test for the existance of a deity then put forth your idea for an experiment. We would all like to win a Nobel for testing the existance of deities.
Otherwise go back to the bronze age where your ideas had more merit.
Here's a rational person who just has misunderstood God.

Forget all the god images created for doctrinal religions. You may be closer to God than you know.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Jan 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

random ntrygg wrote:
if there's no evidence there's nothing to understand
so no, it's not rational to beleive something you don't understand
but you can't judge what other people understand by what you understand
Thank you. Now to conclude:

definitions:
rational belief = a belief based on observed evidence
emotional belief = a belief based solely on emotions (no evidence observed)

1. no one can claim to understand the nature of a creator of the universe
2. there can be no evidence against the existence of a creator of the universe
3. no one can rationally believe that a creator of the universe can not exist
random ntrygg wrote:
because when you don't let religion limit your thinking, you understand a lot more - and until religion stops clouding and limiting your thinking
you have no idea about what you don't understand
people outside of religion, get what religion is about
people inside, not so much
I am working against all religions, they are deceptions. Religions are simply mind controlling "tools" for controlling the masses. In many occasions used to collect money/wealth and ensure a good lifestyle for a few while not caring about the lifestyles of the most.

What I say is:
Never believe another person. Test what they say and believe what you observe. If you are unable to test then you must remain agnostic to what they have said. This is a perfect philosophy and has no down sides whatsoever.

Whay you have failed to understand is:
There are many other mind controlling methods other than religions. They are all based on the very thing that people have some sort of need to believe without testing the claims that they just believe. For some strange reason people can not remain agnostic about certain things. I suspect that the reason is emotions caused by the previous experiences in their lives.

If you want to disagree with any of the above then I must ask you to extremely thoroughly explain why you disagree. Leave all opinions out, they have no value here.

Since: Jan 08

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Jan 9, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
There is. As you might understand philosophical logical evidence is valid evidence for rational thinkers. Rational thinkers don't believe in paradoxes.
There can only be two explanations for the existence of the universe:
1. it was created at some point
or
2. is has always existed
Because of the nature of and laws that apply to energy (of which we have observable evidence) it would be irrational to think that first there was nothing and then suddenly physical matter appeared out of nothing. So this means that there is actual evidence against option #1 and supporting option #2.
From this it logically follows that energy has always existed. It has not necessarily always existed in the form of matter. We know that physical matter is known to be just another form of energy.
Again from this logically follows that if one believes the evidence of the big bang and the beginning of the material universe, then the birth of the material universe must have been an event of translation of immaterial energy into material energy i.e physical matter.
All of this is evidence that everything does not need to have a creator. So in that sense what has existed always, must be the first creator.
<quoted text>
Now. I have clearly indicated my position and pointed you to observable evidence.
What is your evidence that everything must have a creator???
You must have something, otherwise you have based your beliefs on something irrational. What have you got?
This still means you have to provide evidence of who created the creator.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Jan 9, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
There is. As you might understand philosophical logical evidence is valid evidence for rational thinkers. Rational thinkers don't believe in paradoxes.
There can only be two explanations for the existence of the universe:
1. it was created at some point
or
2. is has always existed
Because of the nature of and laws that apply to energy (of which we have observable evidence) it would be irrational to think that first there was nothing and then suddenly physical matter appeared out of nothing. So this means that there is actual evidence against option #1 and supporting option #2.
From this it logically follows that energy has always existed. It has not necessarily always existed in the form of matter. We know that physical matter is known to be just another form of energy.
Again from this logically follows that if one believes the evidence of the big bang and the beginning of the material universe, then the birth of the material universe must have been an event of translation of immaterial energy into material energy i.e physical matter.
All of this is evidence that everything does not need to have a creator. So in that sense what has existed always, must be the first creator.
<quoted text>
Now. I have clearly indicated my position and pointed you to observable evidence.
What is your evidence that everything must have a creator???
You must have something, otherwise you have based your beliefs on something irrational. What have you got?
It is only your humble opinion that there are but two explanations for the universe. There could be billions. BTW- how many universes are we talking about? That may raise the explanations way beyond googol.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Jan 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Pete-o wrote:
This still means you have to provide evidence of who created the creator.
Let's investigate this...
Option #1:
If you believe that something can pop into existence out of NOTHING then the first creator that popped into existence (or was formed from what popped) did not have a creator.

Option #2:
If you believe that nothing can pop into existence out of NOTHING then you understand that something has always existed. This something then could be the first creator that caused the material universe to begin existing. Again this creator was not created and thus does not need a creator.

Conclusion:
If you believe the evidence of the laws of energy conservation and believe that the laws are true, then you actually have evidence for option #2.

The big question now is:
Do you believe that something has always existed (e.g. energy) or do you believe that out of NOTHING something popped into existence?

So which is it???

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Jan 9, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's ...
You started this thread with a false assertion.

I specifically asked to provide proof of that assertion. You have refused to do so.

You have proven yourself to be a liar.

Until you start providing real evidence of your assertions, everything you post should be considered lies.
humble brother

Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Jan 9, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Hedonist wrote:
You started this thread with a false assertion.
This is actually is a false assertion. It is irrational to believe that something can not exist. It is only rational to not believe in the existence of something if there's no evidence.
Hedonist wrote:
I specifically asked to provide proof of that assertion. You have refused to do so.
Do you believe that some sort of evidence is needed for asserting that believing in the nonexistence of something is irrational?
Hedonist wrote:
You have proven yourself to be a liar.
I only say what I believe to be true, thus I am not a liar.
Hedonist wrote:
Until you start providing real evidence of your assertions, everything you post should be considered lies.
You're obviously not thinking straight. Perhaps you should take a time out from this forum. Go relax for a bit.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Jan 9, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
There is. As you might understand philosophical logical evidence is valid evidence for rational thinkers. Rational thinkers don't believe in paradoxes.
There can only be two explanations for the existence of the universe:
1. it was created at some point
or
2. is has always existed
Because of the nature of and laws that apply to energy (of which we have observable evidence) it would be irrational to think that first there was nothing and then suddenly physical matter appeared out of nothing. So this means that there is actual evidence against option #1 and supporting option #2.
From this it logically follows that energy has always existed. It has not necessarily always existed in the form of matter. We know that physical matter is known to be just another form of energy.
Again from this logically follows that if one believes the evidence of the big bang and the beginning of the material universe, then the birth of the material universe must have been an event of translation of immaterial energy into material energy i.e physical matter.
All of this is evidence that everything does not need to have a creator. So in that sense what has existed always, must be the first creator.
<quoted text>
Now. I have clearly indicated my position and pointed you to observable evidence.
What is your evidence that everything must have a creator???
You must have something, otherwise you have based your beliefs on something irrational. What have you got?
If everything does not need to have a creator (your own words) then that can apply to our universe.

I'll tell you what's irrational - to assume magic is the answer when every single mystery that's been solved or explanation provided by science has turned out not to be magic.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Jan 9, 2012
 
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a rational person who just has misunderstood God.
Forget all the god images created for doctrinal religions. You may be closer to God than you know.
Is that any particular deity you're talking about?

You do realise you need to be specific if you're going to talk about your god. After all, how do I know that you don't worship the Dreamtime Snake of the Australian Aborigines?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••